Green Charity Demands Leonardo DiCaprio Return Tainted Money

dicaprio-sellers-goddard

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart – A Malaysian Green Charity has demanded Leonardo DiCaprio return alleged proceeds of crime which were donated to his foundation. Note there is no suggestion that DiCaprio was aware the money his foundation received was tainted, at the time he accepted the money.

Rainforest Charity Urges Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation to Repay Donations Linked to ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Scandal

The Bruno Manser Funds, focused on Malaysian rainforest protection, accuses the star of “double standards” for his environmental charity that is alleged to have accepted donations linked to an international money laundering scandal.

Earlier this year, Leonardo DiCaprio traveled to Indonesia to raise awareness for deforestation, visiting an area on the island of Sumatra, home to indigenous tribes and endangered animals that his Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation has been helping protect.

The trip generated numerous newspaper column inches, alongside pictures of the newly minted Oscar winner with several endangered elephants.

But six months on, the actor is now being accused of “double standards” for accepting donations to his charity from people linked to a corruption scandal that is itself fueling deforestation less than 500 miles away.

The Bruno Manser Funds, a rainforest charity active in Malaysian Borneo, has written an open letter to DiCaprio calling on him to return money he received from individuals connected to the 1MDB Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, now the subject of a major Justice Department asset seizure complaint. While there is no direct link between the Bruno Manser Funds and the actor, the organization says DiCaprio, as founder of his environmental charity and a designated U.N. Messenger of Peace, has a responsibility to help stop corruption.

But it’s not simply DiCaprio’s charitable finances that have been called into question, with Straumann also focusing on his wages for The Wolf of Wall Street, now alleged to have been funded via siphoned-off 1MBD funds. The actor is thought to have been paid as much as $25 million to star in the hit 2013 film, and more as a producer.

Read more: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rainforest-charity-urges-leonardo-dicaprio-923979

What a mess. For once I feel sympathy for DiCaprio. The article also alleges that DiCaprio’s $25 million wages for his part in “The Wolf of Wall Street” was paid in stolen money. DiCaprio might be a hilariously grotesque green hypocrite, but there is no evidence DiCaprio had any idea he was receiving tainted money.

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Green Charity Demands Leonardo DiCaprio Return Tainted Money

  1. …In a U.S. Court of Law, ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. Ignorance of the origin of illegal money is not a valid excuse…UNLESS you turn states evidence !!

      • Or Donald (I don’t pay tax) Trump.

        [??? Was it not Hillary who took a 1,042,000.00 “charitable” tax deduction? For donating $1,000,000.00 to herself? .mod]

      • Mod
        If you are right, where do I sign to be a US Citizen and get my money back, plus some?

        Auto impressed by the (surely not?) capitalist savvy of HRC.
        PS – If the query is Hillary OR Donald . . . .

        I mean, we’re not brilliantly served here with leaders. May. Corbyn. Farron. Whoever the UKIPPERs elect. And sundry fringe/local parties. But – really – how did the USA get in such an apparent fix???

      • goldminor
        Well let’s see his tax returns then. If he has nothing to hide let’s have them all out in the open. Apparently he is the first person running to avoid releasing his returns. You can’t bleat here about Hillary (who may well have be guilty) then turn a blind eye to Trumps fiddling the books. Hypocrisy at it’s worst.

      • @ Simon…I agree with you that Trump should have released his tax returns for his corporation. I think he is hiding them as they would show that he is not as wealthy as claimed. Still he is a private businessman. His actions do not equate to Hillary, who was a high level civil servant of the USA, and has misused the power of her position for influence and money, not that she is the only one to have ever done such.

      • auto: “Mod If you are right, where do I sign to be a US Citizen and get my money back, plus some?”

        The Mod is definitely correct, Hillary took a tax deduction for donating to her own “charity”. She donated one million dollars to herself, and 42 thousand dollars to other charities.

        auto: I mean, we’re not brilliantly served here with leaders. May. Corbyn. Farron. Whoever the UKIPPERs elect. And sundry fringe/local parties. But – really – how did the USA get in such an apparent fix???”

        A bunch of lying news reporters have fooled enough U.S. citizens over the years, to cause them to elect the wrong people. Obama got NO scrutiny. And as you see, Hillary gets no scrutiny, either.

        The Left and the Leftwing Media are in control of the national narrative and have been for a long time. Even many Republicans fall in line. It takes someone like a Reagan to cut through the fog and false reality the Left creates on a daily basis.

        Trump does a pretty good job of cutting through it, himself. The Leftwing Media is trying their best to slap him down, and he is now going up in the polls because he is not backing down, and he is talking to the people over the heads of the Leftwing Media.

      • “Still he is a private businessman. His actions do not equate to Hillary, who was a high level civil servant of the USA”
        but he wants to be the most powerful person on the planet. I think that requires those who may vote for him to have the confidence the man is to be trusted…. as they should do for Clinton. Just you can’t have the rules for one and not another.

      • Simon,

        Trump is not legally obligated to show you a damn thing! If you feel so moral and righteous about it, put your last tax return on public display and allow us to critique what a pissant you are.

        Put up or shut up.

      • Craig
        Pretty simple really. I’m not running for president. If I was, I would do what every other candidate has done till now and that is put my returns on the table. Particularly important with a guy like Trump who desperately needs credibility and to show he is above Clinton in the honesty stakes. One can only assume he is hiding something if he doesn’t whether he is or not.

      • simon-
        “Pretty simple really. I’m not running for president. If I was, I would do what every other candidate has done till now and that is put my returns on the table.”

        Not every single candidate, and certainly not for every single year.
        http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

        “Particularly important with a guy like Trump who desperately needs credibility and to show he is above Clinton in the honesty stakes.”

        Are you kidding? Even a casual observer of history knows that the Clintons are not honest, upstanding people of credibility. Trump is ahead of her in the polls constantly, without his tax returns. And just because “Simon says” doesn’t make anything you say credible or factual.

        “One can only assume he is hiding something if he doesn’t whether he is or not.”
        Flawed logic. One can “assume” anything one chooses to assume, that’s why assumptions are so idiotic. For example we can assume any number of things including innocent until proven guilty, he’s filled with marshmellow fluff, or that he is a shapeshifter from the planet Xoyltme, so it’s irrational to say that one “CAN ONLY assume he is hiding something”.

      • Aphan
        “Trump is ahead of her in the polls constantly, without his tax returns.”
        I didn’t realise you were writing comedy now. Are you kidding? What polls is Trump ahead in except the right wing nut bar ones?
        Anyway no point in telling me Hillary has a problem with Honesty, I’m just saying Trump is no better in fact he is laughable at the moment. “Im gonna build a wall and the Mexicans will pay. “Now it’s just “I will build a wall.” If he wins it will be “I was gonna build a wall but when I get round to it.” The guy couldn’t lay straight in bed.

      • Simon,
        Rasmussen has Trump ahead in the polls today. Don’t really watch them all that much, with margins of error, they are pretty darn close in this race. So if today is the “first day” of Trump being ahead officially, whatever.

        I’m not saying it’s not possible that Trump is as big a liar, schemer, and parasite that Hillary Clinton is. I’m just saying there’s no evidence to prove it so far. Your suspicions and paranoia do not qualify as evidence.

        Politicians who cheat on their taxes still get elected, and re-elected by the American people all the time-
        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/15/the-daily-beast-ranks-the-party-democratic-or-republican-with-the-most-tax-cheats.html

        (From the above article)-
        “The verdict? Turns out Republicans have the bigger names—Jack Abramoff, Randy “Duke” Cunningham—but Democrats have the most tax scandals by a margin of 18 to 7.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

        Above link shows that Americans are very used to finding out that their elected officials are sleazebags and criminals.

        http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-americans-view-their-government/
        Above link shows only 19% of Americans say they can trust their government always or most of the time.

        My point here with the links Simon, is that Americans have LONG given up hope that they’ll even FIND, let alone elect, a candidate who is credible, honest, or filled with integrity. Most Americans are going to “plug their noses and vote this year” for the candidate they feel is the “lesser of two evils”. Pretty much like the last Presidential Election.

    • If I remember my courses in business law correctly, genuine ignorance (as opposed to “Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know”) of an object’s provenance does free one from criminal (but not civil) liability.

    • Ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the origin of illegal money are two different things Marcus. The law has to prove INTENT…and in this case, that Mr DiCaprio 1-knew that some of all of the money he was paid for making a movie was illegal, and 2-he acted intentionally by taking it. Mr. DiCaprio would have been paid to appear in the movie, and garnered a percentage of it’s gross sales, no matter WHO funded the actual movie itself. Mr. DiCaprio is not being prosecuted for a crime, nor is he being investigated for one.

  2. It seems to me that taking money away from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund should be a priority for The Bruno Manser Funds people.

  3. So….let’s assume for the sake of argument, that an inanimate object like “money” can actually be corrupt, or dirty, or evil, or bad or whatever, simply by association. If it’s being earned, stolen, embezzled by bad, evil, corrupt people-then it by default becomes bad, evil or corrupted. If it’s being earned, saved, invested by good, righteous, innocent people-then it by default becomes good, righteous, innocent money.

    Now, let’s say we put a bunch of “bad” currency and a bunch of “good” currency in a room together and mix them all up. How do we identify which bills are the bad ones and which ones are the good ones? Has the “bad” money corrupted all of the “good” money, or does the “good money” overcome in the end and change the “bad money” into good?

    Surely the Bruno Manser Funds people much have a rational, logical explanation for why they hold such a ludicrous belief about the “soul/personality” of printed (or digital) currency. And they must also have a solution to such a problem as how to identify good money from bad money….because they OBVIOUSLY believe that “bad money” cannot be left in the same coffers with “good money”-and must be returned to the “bad people” because it somehow “taints” the organization that obtains both.

    Which is odd, because a Fund set up to save something precious….like a rainforest for example…should be able to use “bad/corrupt” money just as readily, and for the exact same exchange rate, as “good money”. And in the process of using that corrupt, evil money to save, or redeem or protect something GOOD…..wouldn’t that money by default become GOOD, righteous,innocent money again if it’s being used by good, righteous, innocent people? How does giving bad, corrupted money BACK to bad, corrupt people serve anyone other than the bad people….again?

    Why does the Bruno Manser Fund refuse to save, redeem, restore bad money into good money? Are they bigots? Do they believe that bad money is not capable of change? That once bad, always bad? Or are they just guilty of anthropomorphism? (giving human characteristics to things that are, in fact, not human)

    • Give him the money Barney!
      Blimey! How money can talk.
      Money is a path finder.
      Money can speak ALL languages.
      Barter is better.

  4. I thought the tainted money would have been his fees for talking b,lox at climate conferences.

  5. I can just imagine the guy at the soup line.
    We had enough money to feed you today, but the boss didn’t like the politics of the guy who gave us the money. So we gave it back.
    Come back tomorrow, maybe we’ll have food for you then.

      • Marcus,

        First, let’s define “blood money”-
        noun
        1. a fee paid to a hired murderer.
        2. compensation paid to the next of kin of a slain person.
        3. money obtained ruthlessly and at a cost of suffering to others.
        4. money paid to an informer in order to cause somebody to be arrested, convicted, or especially executed.

        Option A- all of the money produced within drug cartels stays within the drug cartels, and only ever promotes, purchases, or provides benefit to bad, corrupt, evil, disgusting people.

        Option B-some of the money produced within drug cartels gets “donated” to promote, purchase, or provide benefits to people who are good, innocent, hard working, and involved in noble causes.

        Blood money has been generated since human society invented currency, and will be generated until the end of human society. What sense does it make to attach a human stigma to inanimate objects-as if the “money” committed a crime? What sense does it make to refuse to use that already produced money-meaning the suffering has already occurred-to do something good-beneficial-worthwhile? Does it honor the lives lost for it, to give it back to the criminals? Does it create any kind of “justice” for the slain or for the currently suffering with need for that money?

        Other than making the celebrity look noble or as if they have some kind of moral character-there is no actual GOOD….or benefit to others….that comes from it. And vanity is worthless.

        Where does all the “money” you gain and spend every year come from Marcus? Do you track it from it’s printing to it’s arrival in your bank account to be sure that only saints and angels have touched it? Do you background check every employer, manager, and boss over you to make sure there is no corruption among them? Do you track the product your company moves, whatever it is, from initial construct to final delivery and assure yourself that it has never damaged the environment, another person’s life, or quality of life, or been involved in nefarious purposes? And if while doing all of these things, you did find some corruption, do you give all of your paychecks back?

        Killing people, or building a ruthless empire is wrong whether you pay out in cash, or gems, or jelly filled donuts. But just like guns, jelly filled donuts, and cash, and gems don’t kill people. People kill people. Nature kills people. Time kills people. Life kills people. But there isn’t anyone here who doesn’t wish we all had more time, more life, more people, and more nature to enjoy and share.

      • MarkW
        August 31, 2016 at 11:53 am

        It beats letting people starve to death.

        What about the people that die BECAUSE of the drug cartels ??

      • Marcus, no one here is defending KILLING people. OR drug cartels. Or criminals. Pretending that this is an either/or situation creates a false dichotomy.

        Drug cartels kill people all the time. Refusing to “do good things” with the money they have won’t change that in the slightest. Letting people starve instead of using “blood money” to save them is killing MORE people….only slowly. And for what reason? Pride? Principles? Wow….would I rather die from a gunshot wound because some @ssh0le wants to shoot me, or die a long, slow, death of starvation because some @ssh0le wants only the money from good people to save my life? From the point of view of the person dying, I’m fairly certain that BOTH @ssh0les look like cowards and criminals, NOT humanitarians.

      • Many years ago my wife and I owned a grocery shop (picture a Kiwi version of the shop Sean Penn ran in Mystic River). A down-and-out scruffy loser came in one day and bought a few items — forgotten what but I’m guessing cigarettes and snack bars — and paid with heaps of small change. That evening one of my regulars came in and mentioned that his house had been broken into that day; nothing much missing but his small-change jar had been taken. I told him about my earlier customer.

        He didn’t come out and directly say it but I got the impression during our chat that he expected me to refund him the cost of the items the alleged but pretty obvious culprit had obtained.

        Had I been Marcus, presumably I would have recompensed my out-of-pocket customer. After all, I had received “tainted” money. But that would have made me the victim of the crime; a daft notion. There was no dishonesty on my part; nor was there a failure to secure my premises.

        Money is merely a means of exchange; it carries no guilt, it carries no blame and it carries no responsibility for the actions of those who handle it.

      • That’s pretty much my point, thank you. You paying the victim of the crime BACK-as if you are somehow responsible for “justice” to him-only makes YOU the new, or additional victim of the same criminal. It doesn’t undo the robbery. It doesn’t punish the thief or have any impact on his life at all.

        So for Marcus, let’s use this scenario and extend it to some other logical conclusions-

        The thief takes the stolen jar of change, along with several containers of change he’s been collecting off the street or by panhandling, to one of those coin exchange machines, and dumps it all in, and receives cash bills in exchange. THEN he bought the cigarettes and whatever from Graphite with that money.
        Is the cash also “tainted”? Because the cash was not “stolen” from anyone.
        Is ALL of it tainted? Or just the part of it that he obtained with the coins stolen from someone else?
        How do you know WHICH cash bills represent the “tainted” money and which ones were exchanged for pocket change that belonged to him legally?
        Why is Graphite morally obligated to do anything other than offer to give the police a description of the man and perhaps some camera footage to help with insurance or a criminal investigation? Paying back the victim out of his own pocket, then shorts Graphite-creates a new (or another) innocent victim-shifts the theft to someone else. It has absolutely ZERO affect on the criminal or his behavior, it brings about ZERO real “justice”.

  6. “The Bruno Manser Funds, focused on Malaysian rainforest protection, accuses the star of “double standards” for his environmental charity that is alleged to have accepted donations linked to an international money laundering scandal.”

    His charity took money from the Clinton Foundation? :-)

  7. Tainted money? What a bizarre idea!

    Suppose that a Neo-Nazi group gave me $100,00. Suppose I was advised to give back or refuse that money. My response would be “No way!” After all, every dollar they gave to me is now one dollar that the Neo-Nazis could no longer use to do something with which I disagree. Why on earth should I refuse (or even worse, return) money which I could do something good with — especially if my accepting it actually prevented it from being used for something evil?!

  8. Hang on a minute. The money was paid into a &foundation, and everyone knows, courtesy of the Clintons, that &foundations are as sacrosanct as the poor box in the Parish Church. And remember, all that money does not enrich the &foundation owner, at all, it is all used to support the poor and disenfranchised. DiCaprio and the Clintons are good guys and only have the good of other, down-trodden people at heart.tic.tic.tic.tic (reminds me, must reorder my meds)

    /*do until ‘&foundation’ =0
    set ‘&foundation’ = ‘slush-fund’
    edo /*

    [you get the drift]

  9. DiCaprio – who recently said, “I love money, but capitalism’s got to go.”

    Remember when he drowned in ‘Titanic’? Yeah, that really cracked me up.

    • Joel,
      He’s made millions filming all sorts of death! Titanic fee=blood money. Winslet needs to give hers back too, as well as James Cameron. Capitalizing on the death and loss of others. Estate taxes….give them back US Government! Oh wait….is paying benefits to US families whose loved ones are killed during military service “blood money”??????? Why do we call it “Life Insurance” when it’s really “death insurance”?

  10. I don’t know why Di Caprio wouldn’t know it was tainted money. When an unknown company, Red Granite Productions, suddenly has 100 million for projects, and pledged 50 million to The Wolf of Wall Street something’s rotten in Denmark. The odd thing is that Scorsese didn’t blink either, the deal probably gave him a great deal of control.

  11. “For once I feel sympathy for DiCaprio.”

    Wot..? Really..? Naa.. Leggo of me leg will ya..?

  12. I sorta reckon paying the sleazy pos 25 mil to “act” let alone the other fees he got
    IS criminal
    no wonder the ego mania over your way is so overdeveloped..these clowns get praised n paid to BE wankers
    I am still at a loss to see wtf? kardashians en masse and the oddball hubby etc value/interest/worth in any sense is???

  13. WRT Trumps tax returns: The Democrats may get their wish and see them, but there could be a “rope-a-dope” going on. Trump may be a lot of things but if he had a huuuuuge problem with the IRS the last thing he’d do is run for president.

  14. So, I can cut someone’s throat and steal their wallet and give the money to the Salvation Army and it’s okay if the SA keeps the money instead of say, giving it back to the family.
    It is going for a good cause, ya know.
    I’m sure Trump and Hillary spend millions of dollars for tax attorneys to make sure they don’t pay too much.
    Trump is a business man who is always being watched by the IRS whereas Hillary will never be audited by the IRS or have a problem with DOJ et al as long as the US government is run by democrats.
    If there was any way to prove it, I’d be willing to wager that the top few hundred (or so) people running the Executive Branch vote Democrat just about every time. I’m not speaking of presidential appointed positions but just the bureaucrats.
    Why is it Rahm’s name never comes up when talking Chicago murders and how to reduce them.

    • Your analogy is not accurate to this specific situation. If the Salvation Army takes a donation, they don’t do a background search on where that money came from. They say thank you, and do good things with it. They are not criminals, nor are they guilty of a crime of any kind. Most humans are like that. Win the lottery and then do a background search on every cent in the total? No. A secret benefactor pays off your student loans…refuse to accept it if you cannot prove it wasn’t blood money? Nope. Someone offers you $50,000,000 to produce your movie idea…done! Have incontrovertible evidence that some of our best and bravest soldiers are DEAD because NO ONE with authority called for air support and/ or rescue during the HOURS in which they held off an armed mob and protected other innocent civilians, and then have no problem with person in charge that night, running for President ? After all, “what difference does it make now”?

      YOU, the murderer, are guilty of a crime. YOU, the murderer, not the Salvation Army, are responsible to make restitution to the family for whatever you stole, AND to serve jail time for the murder. The Salvation Army is not even remotely guilty of a crime.

      Now, if can be proven that the SA was a party to the murder or colluded knowingly with you, the killer, with the INTENT to benefit from your crime, then they are accessories to MURDER and theft. But it would have to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law, that they had foreknowledge of the crime and took the “blood money” intentionally.

      It must also be proven that the SA KNEW that there was no other “clean” money at your disposal, and that the actual cash you put in the SA bucket was the physical property of the person you killed. If you had access to a bank account, or your own cash, or the money your wife earns, then it’s entirely reasonable (unless you have conclusive evidence that proves otherwise) to determine that the money you donated to the SA could just as likely have been “clean money”, so under what legal/moral premise should they be expected or forced to return it?

  15. i’m trying to figure out what all this has to do with Climate (or whatever we’re calling it this week).

    At best DiCarpiro comes off as a willing victim, just like the piano player at Rick’s in Casablanca “What? There’s gambling going on upstairs?”.

    On the one hand he endlessly lectures the rest of us about foreign police & domestic politics; on the other hand he has absolutely zero suspicion a few hundred million dollars may be a little dirty.

    Aphan’s quest or requirement of “proof” sounds like counting angels on heads of pins; in any event, proof is only needed in a court of law. Common sense works just fine for public opinion.

    • “i’m trying to figure out what all this has to do with Climate (or whatever we’re calling it this week).”

      Does it have to have anything to do with it?

      “At best DiCarpiro comes off as a willing victim, just like the piano player at Rick’s in Casablanca “What? There’s gambling going on upstairs?”.On the one hand he endlessly lectures the rest of us about foreign police & domestic politics; on the other hand he has absolutely zero suspicion a few hundred million dollars may be a little dirty.”

      No one here, yourself included, knows what he knew, or knows, or thinks, or does. How he “comes off” is different to everyone, because each one of us has a different world view, different experiences, different cognitive patterns.

      “Aphan’s quest or requirement of “proof” sounds like counting angels on heads of pins; in any event, proof is only needed in a court of law. Common sense works just fine for public opinion.”

      Proof is needed in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, everything is relative, and common sense “is neither common, nor sense”. What the public thinks is usually my last frame of reference on anything.
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense

      • Marcus-
        Moral-“Simple Definition of moral

        : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
        : based on what you think is right and good
        : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior”

        Is it your belief that every single person agrees upon what is “right and wrong in human behavior”? It’s not mine. There are very FEW things in our world today in which everyone agrees upon a certain standard of “right” behavior.

        Now, I believe that most of us would completely agree that drug cartels are wrong, evil, wicked, destructive and wrong. Along with that murder, extortion, and all other illegal acts, especially the ones committed with full purpose and intent to hurt, extort, kill, or gain personally from the suffering of others.

        Justice is about punishing criminals for their criminal behavior. In Graphite’s story, justice can only be served if the criminal (the thief) is caught and punished for what he did. Justice is NOT served by Graphite giving the money back to the thief, or paying the victim out of his own pocket-because NEITHER of those things results in the criminal being caught and punished for his crime!!!!

        Graphite made a completely legal, honest transaction for goods with a paying customer. Period. Graphite is not morally OR legally obligated, or even expected, to know the origin or source of the income used by ANY of his customers, much less VERIFY the “cleanliness of” that income. He’s also not morally OR legally obligated, or even expected by rational, logical standards, to create or enforce “justice” upon or for ANY of his customers outside of the transaction that takes place in his establishment.

        So perhaps you could fully explain whatever “moral” principle or concept you hold on this matter that you think is considered “right and good by most people” “concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior”?

  16. I doubt that Leonardo Di will repatriate the money.

    However, the UN could make Zuck the “Peace” or “Piece” Ambassador taking the lofty crown of thorns from Leonardo Di.

    Don’t pity Zuck for Musk for destroying Cape Canaveral Pad 39A. At a 50 million loss, which will be payed by legal U.S. citizens, the Musk-Zuck can pay for blasted multi-million dollar satellites and launchers like toilet paper in Harlem.

Comments are closed.