Talk:Nugan Hand Bank

Open discussion:
Was this the name of the bank? Probably stupid question. Vague recollection of other official name.Fred 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I started on cleaning up some of the article's style.
 * I also changed some of the links for relevancy.
 * I also renamed the 'scandal' heading. There is quite a bit more to do.

Can we get a link for the Royal Commission (or even its name?) and the 'Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking'? LamontCranston (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found the Royal Commission and the existence of a 3rd government inquiry: http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150582b.htm LamontCranston (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly known in the media as the "Nugan Hand Bank".--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Royal Commission of inquiry into the activities of the Nugan Hand Group [extension of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking 1981–1983]" Date of Letters Patent: 28 March 1983, Date Final Report Presented: 27 November 1985, Commissioner: D. G. Stewart, Report: 275 / 1983, 65/1985, 368-369/1985 (NSW)

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/royalcommissions.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger80 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of article
I'm a little bit worried about the assertion in the article that the CIA regarded Gough Whitlam as a threat and thus removed him. I don't think this theory is widely accepted in the mainstream. Thoughts anyone? (the idea is given a brief passing over in the Gough Whitlam article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.42.132 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While there have been whispers for a long time of CIA involvement, this obviously is not an accepted mainstream fact. I will amend the article accordingly.


 * There are other points in the article which stray in to speculation and allegation. This article should concentrate on the uncontrovertible facts. The important allegations about this bank should be mentioned but their controversial nature needs to be made clear.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In John Jiggens' book "The Sydney Connection: The CIA, drugs, Nugan Hand and the murder of Donald Mackay" ISBN 0-9578684-1-3 Appenidx 2: Gough Whitlam on CIA adtivities in Australia: Jiggens extensively quotes his statement to the House of Representatives and cites Hansard - House of Representatives Parliamentary Debates, 24 May 1977, pp 1695-1700.

Mr E.G. Whitlam:

"... Yesterday, the new United States Ambassador in his first Press conference here declared that he was very much concerned at the allegations he had seen in the Press. Two weeks ago, the United States Senate Committee on Intelligence under the charimanship of Senator Inouye of Hawaii asked the Central Intelligence Agency for a report of its activities in Australia."

I think Gough saw the CIA as a threat, not the other way round. The book also shows a photo of the The Sun headline "CIA May Have Helped Oust Whitlam: An astonishing admission by the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Anthony". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger80 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the CIA and Gough, have a read of Chapter 40 of William Blums Killing Hope. If you're in Melbourne then Fitzroy Library has a copy. LamontCranston (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because something is asserted in a published book doesn't make it true. Here we have opposing viewpoints cited (or ignored) in various publications. As the Whitlam-CIA connection is widely disputed (or ignored) it should not be treated as an established fact (regardless of whether it is true).--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the Whitlam Dismissal article now links here. That doesn't make the issue go away. I think this article needs 2 things: (1) Clear indication of the facts about this bank which have universal or near universal acceptance. (2) References for everything, particularly those statements which are disputed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilson - disambiguation required - twice
Robert Wilson is mentioned in the article and is Wikipedia-linked to the Robert Wilson disambiguation page, but it is not clear which Robert is intended. This should probably be cleared up.

But, internet search turns up (also) Edwin Wilson, who is also involved here somehow. (Just how requires more understanding than I have now.)

See http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7369.html (Edwin) and http://wolfwhistle.the-eleven.com/archives/stories/BCCI1.html (Robert)

SalineBrain (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
Which facts precisely are in issue? If I don't get an answer I think it's fair to look at removing the tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is loaded with conspiracy theories with no citations. Can I suggest the entire article be reviewed and all facts that can't be cited either be removed or it be made clear that these facts are unsubstantiated? Also it's written more like a rant than an Essay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.182.52.148 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are 2 citations. Unfortunately the list of references was added without providing citations to the text. However, I think the text is reasonably accurate. There is speculation but that was a definite part of the notoriety of the bank. And yes a lot of it is bizarre, but that doesn't make it a load of "conspiracy theories". This actually happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Spycraft
"'Fake beards have played supporting roles in several notable international incidents. When Australia's Nugan Hand Bank collapsed in 1980, amid accusations of having trafficked drugs to support American intelligence operations, one of the institution's founders was allegedly smuggled out of the country in a fake beard.'" http://www.slate.com/id/2245034/ --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 18 February 2010 (GMT)

Allegedly.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 RSs report it. Are you elevating your own opinions over what Slate and the book say? --Gwern (contribs) 13:24 22 February 2010 (GMT)

I think I was just echoing your comment - "allegedly"...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad external Links
External links are not for linking to anonymous posts on a BBS, or to wikimir, which has now become a japanese dating website. Everything goes except for the interview with McCoy. Rgr09 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with sources
Several of the sources used in the article are not RS. The catalogue for the Lombardi exhibition is fine for Lombardi, but not for the subjects in Lombardi's works. Its not used in the article anyway. (Did someone really pay US$500 to read this book for information on Nugan Hand??) Jiggens 2004 is a self-published book. These are generally not acceptable. Jiggens 2008 is acceptable, since this is his thesis, accepted by QUT. Stich 2010 is published by Silverpeak, emphatically not an RS publisher. Stich is a prolific writer of conspiracy oriented books, which scrupulously avoid any type of annotation. Big no on that one. Rgr09 (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that mainstream sources largely ignore this scandal. It would be good to know what the Royal Commission actually concluded.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

McCoy interview and McCoy's books
There was an external link to a webpage that had an interview with Alfred McCoy; this page is apparently no longer on line. There is a copy of the page on the wayback machine, but I don't think it's worth linking to. The interview is quite old, from 1991 with Paul DeRienzo, who describes himself as "a progressive broadcaster and teacher." The interview has McCoy claiming things that apparently never made it into his books, such as Thomas Clines "exfiltrating" Hand from Australia. This claim is not in the 1991 or 2003 editions of McCoy's books. Better to just use the books, where McCoy was willing to put his claims in print, and sometimes gives sources. Note also that the article references the 1991 version of McCoy's book; since the book was significantly revised in 2003, it would probably be a good idea to check and make sure the passages cited from it are still there. Rgr09 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems 1: Misattribution
The article originally stated that "An Australian investigation, the 'Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking', compiled a report on the Nugan Hand bank in 1983. It determined that, above and beyond the revelations of the Royal Commission, Nugan Hand had acted as a CIA front to finance a war in Laos by laundering drug money." It gives the source for this as the article by Jonathan Kwitny in Mother Jones magazine listed in the article's footnotes.

This statement has multiple errors. First, the Kwitny article does not say this. Second, the chronology is wrong here. The Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking produced a four volume report on Nugan Hand in 1983. The Royal Commission of Inquiry on Nugan Hand sat from 1983 to 1985 and its final report was released in November 1985. To say that the Task Force determined anything "above and beyond the revelations of the Royal Commission" is therefore impossible. Third, the Task Force report did NOT say that "Nugan Hand had acted as a CIA front to finance a war in Laos by laundering drug money." This statement is simply false. I have deleted it, but it is depressing to note that this passage was added in 2006, and sat here, untouched, until 2015. I have also flipped the two paragraphs in question, so that the Royal Commission of Inquiry comes after the Joint Task Force report. Rgr09 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem is that this is a forgotten story - which was why I created the article ten years ago. Thank you for correcting this.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting the article started. It's a fascinating story that is well worth an article. I will probably have a couple of more additions over the next week, let me know if you spot any problems. Rgr09 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems 2: Claims incorrectly sourced to Kwitny
Related to the same problem discussed above, the article originally stated: An Australian investigation, the 'Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking', released a report on Nugan Hand in 1983 stating that the bank's Chiang Mai branch participated in the covert sale of an electronic spy ship to Iran and weapons shipments to Angola. Kwitny's article in Mother Jones is again cited for this claim, but this is same problem mentioned above. The Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking did not make these claims, and the Mother Jones article by Kwitny does not say that the Task Force did. I've deleted this sentence.

Directly following this, the article also originally stated: American investigative reporter Jonathan Kwitny claims that the evidence implies that Ferdinand Marcos was removing money from the Philippines, some of which was in gold, through Nugan Hand, and that a portion of this money, a "commission", was then used to fund CIA activity, like that in Laos.

The article cited pages 37 and 186 of Kwitny's book, but the book does not say anything anywhere about a "commission" taken by Nugan Hand to fund CIA activity, so I deleted that. About President Marcos the book says: It's been widely rumored that President and Mrs. Marcos, and others in the family,used Nugan Hand to ship out of the Philippines some of the gold and cash they were stealing from the country's economy. But the Rocka records, which surfaced in connection with his visit to Sydney, are the only ones to have turned up. "the evidence implies" and "it's been widely rumored" are not the same thing. I see no point in filling the article up with quotes from various people saying 'it was rumored', so I've deleted the comments about Marcos. Kwitny DOES say there was evidence that the Rockas had accounts with Nugan Hand, so I've left that in. Rgr09 (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems 3: Unsourced claims
The article originally stated: Admiral Yates and his fellow senior officers who were involved with Nugan Hand have not responded to Australian requests to testify about the bank. This is contradicted by Kwitny (p. 157), who notes that Yates testified before the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1984. "Fellow senior officers" implies others refused to testify when asked or summoned, but I can't find mention of this in Kwitny or the news reports I've looked at; except for Michael Hand, of course.

The article also originally stated: Concerns over the bank's questionable accounting processes began to circulate by the late 1970s as investors attending annual general meetings were prevented from asking questions by the bank. I can find no mention in Kwitny or anywhere else that the bank ever held annual general meetings. Rgr09 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Later note: this confuses the Nugan-Hand Bank, run by Frank Nugan, and the Nugan Group, a fruit distribution company started by Frank's father Alf, and run by Frank's older brother Ken. A group of dissident stockholders at the Nugan Group wanted to take over the company, and the Nugan brothers resorted to defensive tactics that involved them in major legal problems. This had nothing to do with the bank. Rgr09 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems 4: References to Paul Helliwell
The article originally contained the following paragraph: Authors Alfred W. McCoy and Sterling and Peggy Seagrave claim that Nugan Hand was totally CIA controlled (via Paul Helliwell), seeing it as part of a series of CIA-controlled banks, preceded by Castle Bank & Trust and succeeded by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). They further assert that the bank was just small stepping stone for the CIA in laundering capital that started during World War II and continues on. I've deleted the whole paragraph. First, Helliwell died in 1976; this makes it impossible for him to have anything to do with the bank for its last 4 years of existence. Second, Kwitny (1987), my current main source for this article, does discuss Helliwell and Castle Bank, but never once claims that Helliwell was involved with Nugan Hand. As far as I can tell, Helliwell's name did not come up in any of the investigations in Australia. No one claims that he ever met or knew anyone officer of the bank: Nugan, Hand, Yates, Houghton, or whoever. Going on to the sources cited in the paragraph, McCoy 1991 discusses Helliwell as the 'black hand' behind Castle Bank, which he claims was a 'predecessor' for Nugan Hand. He is extremely vague on this, but certainly never says that Helliwell 'controlled' Nugan Hand. In the 2003 revision of McCoy's book, Nugan Hand is dropped completely: not one mention. Seagrave's account more or less follows the 1991 McCoy claim. Here is what he says on this: When Castle Bank became notorious, it was folded and superseded by one in Australia, called Nugan-Hand Bank, which had a board packed with retired intelligence officials and Pentagon brass, with CIA director William Colby as its legal counsel. When Nugan-Hand collapsed, following several murders, BCCI moved into the picture. Thus Seagrave does not claim that the CIA controlled Nugan-Hand through Helliwell either (nor does he ever say who was murdered). There being no source for the Helliwell claim, the paragraph should not stay. The whole idea of Nugan-Hand as a successor to Castle Bank, or as a predecessor to BCCI, is basically a fringe claim; none of the investigations into Nugan-Hand or BCCI even mention this, much less support it. Rgr09 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And the CIA did not exist in WW2. Not a very reliable claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Extradition of Hand
It doesn't seem that the Australian authorities gave a definitive reason for not extraditing Hand in 1991. The legal reasons given are speculation by the journalist. The journalist also says the lack of interest is "astonishing". Perhaps we should just say that "Australian authorities did not pursue an extradition".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had trouble with the article. Apparently the reporter couldn't squeeze a quote out of anyone. I agree that some of the reasons not to go after Hand are the reporter's speculations, but the five year limit to charge is a fact. Seems the reporter called everyone he could think of to ask if they would try to extradite, so it is certainly true that no one, state or federal, chose to pursue Hand in 1991, or after either.  Feel free to edit as needed, I'm not Australian, so I'm a little concerned about errors in usage or terms (is state and federal right?) Rgr09 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your terminology is right. The five year limitations applies to company law, not to the criminal charges. I don't think he's right about conspiracy charges. Clearly, your co-conspirator might be dead or missing - that doesn't mean you can't be charged. The "astonishing" quote is a quote from the journalist himself. Taken together with the accompanying article, it sounds like the journalist agreed with a "conspiracy theory" angle - which is fair enough too. But I'll try to edit it to make it neutral and factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Revised lead
Finally found a source for the results of the Stewart Commission. Stewart firmly rejected the claims on the CIA, arms-financing, and drug-smuggling. Kwitny is harshly critical of Stewart's conclusions in his last chapter; I will add this to the section on the investigation in the next revision. I would like to describe the investigation history more clearly, unfortunately my source, Kwitny's book, doesn't present this coherently. It's hard to get a chronological picture of anything from Kwitny, who simply runs back and forth from one CIA scandal to another. Rgr09 (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't really like the revised lead. The bank's claim to fame is its collapse and the sensational claims. That's why I put that in the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I've put too much detail into the lead. I don't mind sensational, but would prefer more specific wording for sure. Give me a day to ponder and adjust it. If it still doesn't work for you, let's see if we can find a medium. Rgr09 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to access the Commission report?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in reading all of the official reports, but have not been able to find any of these, either on-line or in libraries. It is possible to ask for scans of documents which are on deposit at NLA, but it is not cheap, and the reports altogether would come to as much as a thousand pages. Let me know if you know where I can get hold of these on-line or in the US. Rgr09 (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'll let you know if I find anything. Hansard is online for when the final report of the Stewart Commission was tabled in Federal Parliament on 27 November 1985. Unfortunately, they don't include the report itself. But there is a summary of the findings, and the Opposition attacks the government for suggesting the CIA was involved. I don't know if that helps at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I could access the report myself here in Australia if there were any specific questions to be answered.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quartermaine
The article originally stated: In April 1983 a Perth businessman, Murray Quartermaine, testified to the Stewart Royal Commission on drugs that Hand was living in Pretoria, South Africa under the name of "Hahn". Quartermaine also told The Age that he had evidence that questioned that Nugan's death was a suicide.

The final report of the Stewart Commission cites no evidence that Hand ever visited South Africa after leaving Australia, and affirmed the original coroner's verdict that Nugan committed suicide. I have therefore removed this paragraph. Jonathan Kwitny, writing in his book on the Nugan Hand scandal, mentions only the claim that Hand came to the United States after fleeing Australia. The Eye magazine story cited below claimed that by the early 1990s Hand was in the United States, basing its story on the passport renewal of Hand's wife. Rgr09 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

CIA connections
The new section on CIA connections states: CIA director, Bobby Inman’s personal investigation of Nugan Hand Bank determined that only short-term employees of the CIA owned Air America were on the bank payroll and none were career employees. However, he failed to include CIA veteran’s, Walt McDonald and William Colby who were also on the payroll. This is based on Butt's recent book on Nugan Hand. In this instance, Inman's statement is correct. Walt McDonald was a consultant for the bank (Kwitny, Crimes of Patriots p. 302), while Colby was hired to do legal work for a specific bank project. As such, he was not on the payroll, but submitted bills for the hours of legal services provided (Kwitny, Crimes of Patriots p. 66). Neither of these are payroll positions, so I have deleted this point. If Butt has more information on this, please post here. Rgr09 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What an odd coincidence that Butt's book has come out just as you have been revising this article. I will try to get Butt's book at some point to check this information thoroughly.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

McDonald and Colby are pertinent to the discussion. I feel their deletion is overkill so have replaced 'payroll' with 'engaged'. McCoy (1991) merely touched upon Nugan Hand given the breadth of his research. However, McCoy and Kwitny's research should not dismissed out of hand given that it took place during an earlier period. Therefore, it may illuminate the ability of well-connected criminals to act with impunity and government agencies to operate free from public surveillance. Butt has used contemporary communications to aid his research, producing the first book solely committed to the bank's history and its villains. Dingarwil (talk) 9:31 17 January 2019 (UTC+10)


 * Changing the words 'on the payroll' to 'engaged' does not fix the problem. You present Butt as contradicting Inman, but this passage does not contradict Inman. It is now simply a non sequitur. This should be presented in a clear and NPOV way. What did Inman actually say?  What did Butt actually say? Quotes are needed, at least.


 * As for sources, I disagree with your claim that Butt's work is the first book focused on the Nugan Hand Bank scandal. Kwitny's Crimes of Patriots is a full length book treatment of Nugan Hand. It was published in 1987, so it is obviously prior to Butt. Not having read Butt, I can't say anything about the books' relative merits. Rgr09 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be good to extract some facts, rather than retail claim and counterclaim. We know Colby had been in the CIA, but why did this fly-by-night bank in Australia employ an American lawyer???--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I have actually read Butt and irrespective of my literary naivety, attempted to assess "the books' relative merits". I also assumed that the change to 'engaged' would be read in context. Former CIA director, Bobby Inman clashed with presidential candidate, Ross Perot, who held suspicions that the CIA had a relationship with Nugan Hand Bank. Inman claimed to have made a personal investigation of the bank. He determined that only short-term employees of the CIA owned Air America were on the bank payroll and none were career employees.[Butt] However, Inman disregarded CIA veterans, Walt McDonald and William Colby, who were engaged by the bank to provide their professional expertise.[Butt; McCoy]

Above: However, Inman disregarded CIA veterans...(NPOV)? or use "Inman conveniently overlooked both...[McDonald and Colby]..."(Butt page 236)Dingarwil (talk) 13:31 17 January 2019 (UTC+10) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I've invested a fair amount of time in this article, I went ahead and bought a copy of Butt's book on Google Play. I've only had a chance to look at the passages we've been talking about here, so I'll limit myself to these. First, regarding attribution, neither McCoy nor Kwitny mention Inman's investigation of Nugan Hand.  The reason is that the source for Inman's comments is from 1992, when their books had already been published. Inman's comments come only from Butt's book; the whole discussion should therefore be attributed to Butt, not McCoy.  The passage you are citing is on p. 207 in my digital copy and reads:

Inman said that he had personally conducted the CIA's investigation into the bank and determined that while there had been 'CIA operatives on the bank's payroll, all were short-term employees of Air America, a CIA-controlled airline disbanded in 1981. ... [but] none were career employees, who received more rigorous vetting.'


 * The quote between the single quote marks is from a story by Brian Duffy in US News & World Report, 6 June 1992. (Butt's citation is oddly scrambled; it seems he read the story when it was reprinted in a Florida newspaper.) This is not a direct quote from Inman, it is a summary by Duffy. The context is the 1992 US presidential campaign, when H. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, and the article is about Ross's supposedly unsound views on a number of subjects, including a willingness to believe conspiracy theories. Duffy clearly considers Perot's views on Nugan Hand as falling into this category.


 * I see several problems with using this citation. First, I think that your paraphrase of the quote is easily misconstrued; when you say "He determined that only short-term employees of the CIA owned Air America were on the bank payroll and none were career employees", the phrase "career employees" could easily be taken to mean career employees at the bank. The original meaning is of course career employees at the CIA. It would probably be better to just give the statement as Butt quotes it.


 * Second, Butt is using Duffy's article to introduce a very obscure subject, some kind of CIA "investigation" of CIA involvement with Nugan Hand. The "terms" (dates, allegations to look at, etc.) and findings of this investigation are unknown to me, and I think to Butt as well; this is the only place he mentions it. This article has been troubled in part by failure to accurately describe the investigations that took place into Nugan Hand.  Now here is another investigation, one that never had a formal announcement, one whose report never had a formal release, and one whose relationship to the other investigations is unknown. If this report going to be mentioned in the article, it should be introduced in the section on investigations, but the only way to do that is to mention Duffy's one paragraph on the subject in US N&WR. This is not enough material to make it worth talking about.


 * Third, Duffy's summary of what Inman said about his "investigation" of Nugan Hand is marred by the mistaken claim that Air America was "disbanded" in 1981. If you check the Wikipedia article on Air America, you will see that Air America was dissolved on 30 June 1976, so the article is wrong.  Inman would certainly not have such a mistake. Duffy probably checked up on Air America after talking to Inman, and got the date wrong. This kind of mistake does not inspire confidence in Duffy's accuracy. On the contrary, it suggests the article should not be taken as an accurate statement of a formal finding by the CIA. Not surprising, since it is really an article about Perot's 1992 campaign, not about Nugan Hand. If Duffy is not accurate, I question why he should be as the sole source for the CIA investigation. Since I'm picking on Duffy, I might as well also note that Inman was not the director of CI, he was deputy director; this is Butt's mistake.


 * I can see that Butt has many criticisms of the Stewart Commission report that may be worth including in the article. I have no problem with putting these in, but his criticisms must be accurately described and attributed, and there must also be an accurate statement of what it is that is being criticized, in order to give a clear, NPOV presentation. Hope all this doesn't strike everyone as an excess of nit-picking. Rgr09 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Re my attribution:  Inman’s comments are attributed to Butt. Seven appointments to the bank and their roles therein were revealed by McCoy. They include McDonald and Colby. Therefore, the short final sentence is attributed to McCoy and Butt in an accepted manner. This is not a submission to Court where we may be more pedantic by also attributing “conveniently overlooked” solely to Butt.

Butt has cited the Florida reprint correctly ( see title, page 1) and probably used this addition because it is more accessible to the reader. Duffy remains the author of the ‘reprint’ and he does quote Inman’s recollection of his interaction with Perot when this specific matter was discussed. To seek a “statement of a formal finding by the CIA” is fanciful. An in-house investigation within any Intelligence Agency is probably as questionable as a Vatican inquiry into paedophile Priests. Nevertheless, Duffy appears to have obtained an admission from Inman, a senior ex-CIA source. On the matter of “excess of nit-picking”, and the risk of creating a primary article: unless the evidence can be shown to be without foundation it should stand ( with appropriate caveats). Your current methodology would leave us with little history; given that much history is based upon empirical evidence that remains open to scrutiny. Perhaps your expertise could be used to address the vital question that remains; why did a small Australian bank recruit at least seven senior US military officers, contractors or CIA operatives who had no apparent banking history? Dingarwil (talk) 10:34 19 January 2019 (UTC+10) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment. I see now why you have McCoy in your footnote, but I don't see that he provides any information that's not already in Butt. Using multiple sources that provide identical content is common throughout Wikipedia; it makes extra work for people who are interested enough to look stuff up, and leaves lots of room for confusion. Arguments over which source is providing which information won't arise if you just avoid supererogative sourcing.


 * For the rest of your response, I'll just repeat what I said before: it is unacceptable editing practice to put in rebuttals of investigations while omitting a basic description of the investigation being rebutted. This article itself did not mention the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission on Nugan Hand at all until I added them a couple of months ago. Butt's objections to the Report need this context, or they make no sense. The same is true of whatever Inman is supposed to have done.  Rgr09 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the "nit-picking" is greatly improving the article. It's been relatively hard to find "hard facts" about the bank.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any point in having the Inman paragraph, all things being considered. We know that Colby etc were connected to the bank in various ways, but the rest of it is unnecessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

New source: Stewart's memoirs
I have got hold of a new source: Don Stewart's memoirs, Recollections of an Unreasonable Man. I think it's reasonable to quote some passages to clarify what he actually said.


 * It really was open slather; during this period [1967-?] drug use and trafficking, particularly in heroin, burgeoned. I have no doubt that Houghton, Nugan and Hand played a big part in this. [p 165].


 * Former senior United States military personnel of high rank, including admirals and generals with no banking experience, were being employed in an effort to show that Nugan Hand had US connections, even to the CIA, which was probably not the case. Certainly there was no real evidence that it did. [pp 166-167]


 * Years later when, despite our best efforts, we at the Royal Commission did not have enough hard admissible evidence against him to recommend criminal charges (due largely to poor record keeping and the destruction of documents when the feathers hit the fan after Frank Nugan's death) Bernie [Houghton] had the gall to announce that he had been 'cleared' by the Stewart Royal Commission. He hadn't been cleared, far from it, but the Nugan Hand mob was good at twisting the facts to suit themselves. [p 170]


 * There is no evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith against Admiral Yates or any other former US military person employed by Nugan Hand. William Colby, a former director of the CIA, gave evidence before me in Washington to the effect that he had been sought out as a lawyer well versed in American law to give advice to the Nugan Hand group. His evidence was that he gave such advice and that's all he did. I have no reason to disbelieve him. He had been sought out to lend credibility to Nugan's and Hand's efforts to make people think they were close to power in the United States. In fact this was not the case. [pp 171-172].

I think this puts the conclusions of the Royal Commission in somewhat of a different light.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. On the matter of N/Hand and the drug trade, Stewart confirms the observation of Doug Sapper: ‘Just because there is no evidence, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’. Stewart does not seem to include Colby and Yates et al. in the “Nugan Hand mob [that] was good at twisting the facts to suit themselves”. At the very least, I have to question the naivety of these highly ranked US officials who saw no evil. Similarly, having closely observed the Fitzgerald Inquiry into Police Corruption, I remain cynical about the majority of Qld Police personnel, (professional investigators at all ranks) who never saw any corruption.--Dingarwil (talk)


 * Stewart says that Yates made extensive background checks before joining the bank. And I guess he didn't have any banking experience. But you would think that he and the others would wonder what was going on. Colby was different as he was only giving legal advice (apparently). I don't see what having these people involved achieved for Nugan and Hand. But that is Stewart's explanation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Given Stewart’s role in the saga his memoirs should be included. I am assuming that Stewart’s current observations were not attached to his findings in 1983. Probably this was because, at that time, the CIA was seen as the good guys (Dowd and Walker 2011). Regarding ‘extensive background checks’; Houghton was becoming more active in the banks activities, having already facilitated Murray Riley’s involvement, several years before he recruited his old friend Yates, in 1977. However, there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing on Yate’s [questionable] part. By 1979, the bank was clearly in financial trouble. This is the period that Colby and CIA operative, Guy Pauker, (Kwitney p.288) were recruited as consultants. The failing bank was already supervised by significant US personalities. It would seem that engaging the best legal mind would have been more beneficial than acquiring just one more personality. Irrespective, as legal advisor, Colby would need to understand the machinations within the bank.--Dingarwil (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think Stewart's memoirs contradict the Commission's conclusions, but I will definitely try to get hold of those, so we have it first hand. What Yates did was ask around – Stewart gives details. I don't think that Dowd and Walker's comments are particularly significant. As quoted above, Colby claimed that he was only giving advice. Lawyers give advice to criminals all the time. If this is all he did, he would only know what he'd been told.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his concluding directions and remarks would be good. I'm also trying to get a copy of Recollections of an Unreasonable Man and I'm not suggesting that his comments ( if they were in fact omitted) contradict his findings. A Lawyer intending to properly advise a client must know all the salient facts. However, in theory, the lawyer must advise the client who claims innocence to brief him/her without admitting guilt. A hypothetical conversation will probably proceed.--Dingarwil (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The memoirs only have a short chapter on the bank, and I have quoted the key parts above. I don't understand what you mean by "omitted". The comments in his memoirs are reflections on the topic decades after the Commission concluded.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Stewart Commission Report
I have now had a look at the final report. I can confirm that the media reports cited here are accurate. Unfortunately, there is no summary of the findings which is easy to cite. The conclusion deals with criminal charges, and most of it is omitted to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. I have made a copy of the section dealing with the CIA for future reference.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Butt
It seems to me that it would be better to cite what Butt says, rather than citing Butt citing someone else, which is a kind of appeal to authority. Clearly, Butt has some evidence for his conclusions, but I don't think we need to drill into that, nor do we have the space to do so. In addition, I don't exactly understand why those particular citations have been used. They seem a bit random.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets see you want to go here. Remember Butt may or may not have reached his own conclusions, however the 'citations', so called, refer to statements made to him by other actors in the saga..--Dingarwil 16:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't quote from everyone involved. I'm particularly thinking of the comments of Dowd and Walker. Also, I think the reference to Brian Alexander is strange. There is no evidence that Alexander took anything from Nugan's home, and there is no evidence that Nugan had any incriminating documents in his home. The police were looking for a suicide note. Butt just mentions the incident in passing, so why include it here?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

To walk on eggshells? It could also be argued that citing Butt is an appeal to authority, add Kwitney and McCoy; while all three may be deemed expert researchers, they are not (to my understanding) experts within the field of espionage. Butt seems to have provided partial but accurate transcripts of his conversations with various actors. Perhaps this could be expanded in the page. They provide context to the somewhat naïve relationship Australia once had with the USA and it's agencies. Such open collaboration with the CIA would not be tolerated today. While the CIA remains silent, it is difficult to provide balanced commentary. Maybe we could cite a US based page I found: " The CIA set up the Nugan Hand Bank to catch drug smugglers" !!!

Re Alexander: Probably one of the most intriguing aspects of the whole Nugan Bank saga (given the size of the operation) has been the lack of evidence. One has to admire their efficiency. Alexander is mentioned a little more than 'in passing'. Butt seems to find his presence in the house significant as it coincided with the noisy and apparently stage-managed arrival of the police "he clearly had the opportunity to remove evidence and therefore hinder the investigation..." The alleged prior knowledge by police of Nugan's 'suicide' location is an associated episode that could be better explained. Dingarwil08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Butt describes destruction of evidence on a grand scale, so why bother with Alexander?
 * As for the CIA, Australia still hosts the spy base at Pine Gap and no doubt ASIO, ASIS etc work very closely with the CIA and the other American agencies. I would argue that, in the context of Watergate and the Church Committee, the CIA was viewed with more suspicion in the 1970s and early '80s than today. Clearly, Frank Walker, the NSW Attorney General and a member of the Labor Left, was keen to go after the Nugan Hand Bank. And of course the Royal Commission was established, which addressed alleged CIA involvement. While Butt and other might describe the Royal Commission as a whitewash, the fact is it didn't have to be set up at all.
 * I'm not very impressed by Butt on Nugan's suicide. He provides no alternative scenario. Nugan clearly had several reasons to kill himself, centred round the case against the fruit company and the problems with the bank. He was witnessed getting a shooter's licence and buying the gun. The suggestion that the police had prior knowledge of Nugan's place of death raises far more questions than it answers. We need to accept a vast conspiracy extending to the Lithgow local police. What a load of nonsense!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Mate, been there and am here now. I can assure you, post-Vietnam, for many in the public and within political circles, there is deep mistrust of US political motives and especially of their intelligence agencies. The relationship is a matter of uncomfortable convenience due to Australia's perceived isolation. Pine Gap is a 'well known secret' that is not rubbed in the public nose. The dubious evidence presented as reason to join Bush's invasion of Iraq led to massive public opposition and street demonstrations. In no way was it an "all the way with LBJ" moment.
 * While we pontificate about motives and evidence or the lack of it, it is worth considering that, until the 1990s, the "criminal milieu" had the freedom of Australian's major cities to corrupt, destroy evidence and influence investigations. It began at the top of the political heap and ran down through police, lawyers, businessmen and the judiciary.
 * Butt does not assert that the Royal Commission was a whitewash. Detective Clive Small did so.
 * "...the fact is it didn't have to be set up at all." Really? To paraphrase 'milieu' member, Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, "you never have an inquiry until you know the outcome".
 * Butt was attempting to locate Hand, he did so. However, he disappoints you because, along the way, he does not provide a reasoned alternative scenario for Nugan's death. Possibly, it was suicide. Possibly, Nugan bought the gun for self defense.
 * Discussion on the matter of police involvement/prior knowledge/ Alexander's presence was brought on by police and investigators not by home-bound conspiracy theorists. Cheers. Dingarwil 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Abeles
Back in 2007, I added the following to the article:
 * Australian trucking magnate Peter Abeles was also connected with the bank.

This was back in the days when we were scrambling to get sourced information to add to the article. While I don't doubt this information is true, it is very vague and it doesn't seem notable in retrospect. Abeles isn't mentioned by Butt. I suggest removing it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Butt's Merchants of Menace
I have recently returned to Butt's book, and have some concerns about it. First, the book was published by 'Blackwattle Press.' There was a Blackwattle Press that published some book titles in the early 1990s, but this is apparently not the same company. Instead, 'Blackwattle Press' seems to be a part of Butt's film production company. In this case, the book is self-published. Wikipedia does not often cite self-published works; I don't know what arguments support using it here. Butt's reputation as a documentary maker? Second, there are clear cases where Butt's work is badly sourced. An instance of this is his use of Earl Cocke's "deposition" actually cited in the article. Butt sources this to an article by David Guyatt in Nexus Magazine. Nexus is emphatically non-RS, please check the RS noticeboard. I have deleted the reference to Cocke's deposition in the article. Regardless of whether Butt's book is judged RS as a whole, Nexus doesn't get a pass just because Butt cites it. In fact, Butt's use of it reflects (badly) on the quality of his research. Rgr09 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was disappointed with Butt's book. It was a bit scrappy, but that's not a reason to stop using it. We still use media reports even though they frequently contain inaccuracies. The book was taken seriously by the mainstream media in Australia: . It has been purchased by many libraries across Australia: . It is available from mainstream booksellers, including Amazon. Blackwattle Press does seem to be a venture associated with Butt, but this is not an obscure book. He is an award-winning documentary maker, and not an obscure person. None of this makes his conclusions correct or his research thorough. He is most famous for studying the Bogle–Chandler case, and personally I think his conclusions are bulldust. I think we've got to be judicious when we use Butt's book, but really we should be careful using any source, and try to use a range of sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links to reviews and other info on Butt. Given the sources Butt is using, and how he uses them, my own call is that the various government inquiries should clearly be given preference over Butt when revising the article.


 * Butt's value is in providing criticism of the inquiries, particularly the Royal Commission. This certainly should have a place in the article. That doesn't mean random or unreasonable criticism can get dropped into the article, and it certainly doesn't mean that Butt's claims should be taken as more reliable than Stewart's findings. Some examples of this: the article goes on now about the heavily redacted FBI files that the earlier inquiries looked at. My understanding, however, is that Stewart was provided with all the unredacted FBI files, and found nothing there to support any of the CIA claims.  If I can find this quote, I will put it in.


 * I also find the way Butt's criticism of Nugan's autopsy is cited very questionable. Stewart went over the autopsy thoroughly, as far as I can tell, and there was nothing there. This style of writing generally fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and all the other concerns that are mentioned in places like the JFK autopsy article. Rgr09 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with that. Scepticism has to be treated with scepticism. Unfortunately, Butt has gone too far when the evidence just isn't there. The FBI files are referred to on pp 752-753 of the extract from Stewart's report that I sent you some time back: "The Commission is therefore able to report, unequivocally, that there was nothing in the files of any significance concerning any subject matter within the terms of reference and in particular nothing which could lend credence to the C.I.A. allegation in any of its various forms." Stewart went to Washington and perused the files, but on the proviso that he wouldn't report what the files contained. To me, this raises the question as to what the FBI files were about... There are still unanswered questions, and Butt hasn't answered them.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is clearly undue weight given to Butt's views and research, and most of it violates WP:REDFLAG in that the allegations have not been reported in mainstream sources. Furthermore, there are other significant issues related to WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. In Butt's book, the website www.merchantsofmenace.net is noted. At the bottom of that website in a link to www.blackwattlepress.com.au which redirects to https://www.blackwattledigital.net/. The only books listed there are those by Butt. Unless there is secondary coverage of Butt's views, everything cited to him should be scrapped. (For example, this is a reliable secondary source in which Butt discusses Sapper that might be permissible.) -Location (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. He is a reputable author and film-maker, and his book has received mainstream news coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To which part of WP:REDFLAG do you disagree? Allegations and claims that bump into that can be mentioned to the extent they have been covered in mainstream sources. -Location (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Belated response: I think this is an exception to the rule on self-publishing. Peter Butt is an award-winning film-maker and his book has received mainstream acceptance, as discussed above. He is considered by some to be a leading investigator of Australian mysteries. The claims raised by Butt are by and large not new. They were aired extensively in the Australian media and were investigated by the Royal Commission. Allegations of CIA drug trafficking have been published widely. This does not fit WP:REDFLAG.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA involvement?
There is no justification for having this separate section as the same allegations are dealt with under "Investigations". The information given is often not neutral and sometimes incoherent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)