The article below has been published at DT, and follows up on a previous thread.
Visa corruption in the US Embassy in Santo Domingo: revelations, allegations and retractions
On 7 August 2015, Dominican Today, a well-known English-language newspaper which has been published for a decade in Santo Domingo, Dominican Rep., reported that a "Visa scandal" involving the issuance of US visas in exchange for money had shut the United States Embassy's Consular Section in Santo Domingo.
The article was based on allegations made in a long-running reputable TV program by commentator Aridio Castillo, who has practiced journalism for 37 years. The allegations gave specific details, such as the amount of money paid for a visa, the number of fraudulent visas that had been detected, the number of visa officers involved, and the involvement of the FBI.
Prior to publishing the story, the writer and publisher of Dominican Today made numerous calls to the Embassy, which were only answered by a machine. He did not receive a response from the Embassy, even after his article had been published.
It is relevant to point out that former consular officer John Allen Cushing revealed in a 2013 article by The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training (ADST) that during his tenure in the same Embassy “guys were trading visas for the favors of young ladies” and that “sex has always been a big problem”. The article makes no mention of any punishment to any of the perpetrators of these actions; or whether they were even transferred to different duties.
The week following his allegations, Mr. Castillo retracted them with an apology, implying that his source, whom he had deemed trustworthy, had backed down.
The retraction, however, does NOT end the issue, because it is in principle possible that a journalist, a source or even a court witness be coerced or induced into withdrawing allegations that may in whole or in part be true. For example, a “source” may be an indiscreet employee who upon being found out, accepts a deal to withdraw his revelations in exchange for leniency.
The Embassy's handling of these allegations in fact contributes to fuel suspicion that the withdrawn allegations may have been at least partially based on true developments.
Upon learning of these allegations, this author searched for any official press release or written statement from the Embassy on this matter, but found none. Several requests through the Embassy's twitter account ( @EmbajadaUSAenRD ) for any such statement went unanswered for several days. An answer came after the request had been escalated to alert some of the Embassy's Washington supervisors within the Executive and Legislative branch of the U.S. government.
The Embassy's answer did NOT point this author to any written official statement previously given by the Embassy about these allegations (as had been requested). The Embassy simply said “these allegations were false and the journalist publicly apologized to the Embassy in Aug”.
Unfortunately, the “blanket” statement “these allegations were false” is nearly useless from the point of view of logic. To see why, consider the accusation: Peter stole 3 apples and 5 oranges. If the statement “that allegation is false” is applied to the previous accusation, many possibilities in which Peter has done something wrong remains, such as (a) Peter stole 5 apples and 3 oranges (the accuser had mismatched the numbers to the objects), (b) Peter stole 3 pineapples and 5 tangerines (the accuser had the right numbers but the wrong objects) (c) Peter stole nothing, but rather raped and murdered the store clerk (he committed a different much more serious crime than accused), etc., etc. Likewise, the Embassy's tweet “these allegations were false” leaves open the possibility of serious wrongdoing in the issuance of U.S. visas as alleged by Mr. Castillo, even if the specific details provided by him were inaccurate.
Furthermore, the absence of an official “press release” addressing the allegations seems at odds with their gravity and the relatively good standing of the media outlets involved. Likewise, it appears that nobody from the Embassy visited the TV program concerned (for a live on-camera denial), nor went to any other media outlet to address these allegations (as done recently by the Ambassador and his husband when they visited a TV program to address criticism by the Dominican Cardinal).
In all, it seems clear that the Embassy has shown extreme reluctance to directly address in written or recorded form these extremely serious allegations of corruption within its walls. It is a safe guess that the people of the U.S. would find reassuring that the Embassy more clearly address the mentioned allegations, and even more importantly, that it openly discuss whether it has in recent years detected ANY wrongdoing by its consular personnel while performing official duties. This would further strengthen its calls for transparency and against corruption in the Dominican society.
Visa corruption in the US Embassy in Santo Domingo: revelations, allegations and retractions
On 7 August 2015, Dominican Today, a well-known English-language newspaper which has been published for a decade in Santo Domingo, Dominican Rep., reported that a "Visa scandal" involving the issuance of US visas in exchange for money had shut the United States Embassy's Consular Section in Santo Domingo.
The article was based on allegations made in a long-running reputable TV program by commentator Aridio Castillo, who has practiced journalism for 37 years. The allegations gave specific details, such as the amount of money paid for a visa, the number of fraudulent visas that had been detected, the number of visa officers involved, and the involvement of the FBI.
Prior to publishing the story, the writer and publisher of Dominican Today made numerous calls to the Embassy, which were only answered by a machine. He did not receive a response from the Embassy, even after his article had been published.
It is relevant to point out that former consular officer John Allen Cushing revealed in a 2013 article by The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training (ADST) that during his tenure in the same Embassy “guys were trading visas for the favors of young ladies” and that “sex has always been a big problem”. The article makes no mention of any punishment to any of the perpetrators of these actions; or whether they were even transferred to different duties.
The week following his allegations, Mr. Castillo retracted them with an apology, implying that his source, whom he had deemed trustworthy, had backed down.
The retraction, however, does NOT end the issue, because it is in principle possible that a journalist, a source or even a court witness be coerced or induced into withdrawing allegations that may in whole or in part be true. For example, a “source” may be an indiscreet employee who upon being found out, accepts a deal to withdraw his revelations in exchange for leniency.
The Embassy's handling of these allegations in fact contributes to fuel suspicion that the withdrawn allegations may have been at least partially based on true developments.
Upon learning of these allegations, this author searched for any official press release or written statement from the Embassy on this matter, but found none. Several requests through the Embassy's twitter account ( @EmbajadaUSAenRD ) for any such statement went unanswered for several days. An answer came after the request had been escalated to alert some of the Embassy's Washington supervisors within the Executive and Legislative branch of the U.S. government.
The Embassy's answer did NOT point this author to any written official statement previously given by the Embassy about these allegations (as had been requested). The Embassy simply said “these allegations were false and the journalist publicly apologized to the Embassy in Aug”.
Unfortunately, the “blanket” statement “these allegations were false” is nearly useless from the point of view of logic. To see why, consider the accusation: Peter stole 3 apples and 5 oranges. If the statement “that allegation is false” is applied to the previous accusation, many possibilities in which Peter has done something wrong remains, such as (a) Peter stole 5 apples and 3 oranges (the accuser had mismatched the numbers to the objects), (b) Peter stole 3 pineapples and 5 tangerines (the accuser had the right numbers but the wrong objects) (c) Peter stole nothing, but rather raped and murdered the store clerk (he committed a different much more serious crime than accused), etc., etc. Likewise, the Embassy's tweet “these allegations were false” leaves open the possibility of serious wrongdoing in the issuance of U.S. visas as alleged by Mr. Castillo, even if the specific details provided by him were inaccurate.
Furthermore, the absence of an official “press release” addressing the allegations seems at odds with their gravity and the relatively good standing of the media outlets involved. Likewise, it appears that nobody from the Embassy visited the TV program concerned (for a live on-camera denial), nor went to any other media outlet to address these allegations (as done recently by the Ambassador and his husband when they visited a TV program to address criticism by the Dominican Cardinal).
In all, it seems clear that the Embassy has shown extreme reluctance to directly address in written or recorded form these extremely serious allegations of corruption within its walls. It is a safe guess that the people of the U.S. would find reassuring that the Embassy more clearly address the mentioned allegations, and even more importantly, that it openly discuss whether it has in recent years detected ANY wrongdoing by its consular personnel while performing official duties. This would further strengthen its calls for transparency and against corruption in the Dominican society.
Last edited:
