Bank Records Show President Biden Received Recurring Payments from Son's Law Firm

https://icaro.icaromediagroup.com/system/images/photos/15916436/original/open-uri20231204-56-xstncr?1701731092
ICARO Media Group
Politics
04/12/2023 23h00

In a recent development, bank records released by the House Oversight Committee reveal that President Joe Biden received recurring payments from his son Hunter Biden's law firm, Owasco PC, starting in late 2018. The payments, totaling $4,140, were made through a monthly transfer to then-former Vice President Joe Biden. The release of these records has stirred controversy and accusations of corruption.

The documentation, including a voided check for the future president, was made public on Monday, shedding light on the financial transactions between the elder Biden and his son's firm. According to bank records, the payments were made on September 17, October 15, and November 15, 2018. The source of the funds is unclear, but it is worth noting that around the same time, large sums of money from Chinese government-linked sources were entering the account without any apparent services rendered.

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) expressed his concerns about the payments, claiming that President Biden and his family must be held accountable for this alleged corruption. Comer stated in a video release, "This wasn't a payment from Hunter Biden's personal account but an account for his corporation that received payments from China and other shady corners of the world." Comer referenced an ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice into Hunter Biden's alleged tax evasion and other crimes related to Owasco PC.

The White House has not yet responded to the release of the bank records. However, there is speculation that the funds could potentially be related to car payments, as a January 2019 email from an assistant to Hunter Biden mentioned a reimbursement for a Ford Raptor vehicle in the amount of $1,380. The true purpose and origin of the funds remain uncertain.

These revelations come amid House Republicans' preparations to question James Biden, the president's brother, and Hunter Biden himself about the Biden family's involvement in controversial business relationships in countries such as Ukraine and China. Documents from Hunter Biden's laptop indicate his connections with Ukraine's Burisma Holdings and CEFC China Energy, two of the most contentious ventures involving the Biden family.

The timing of the payments to Joe Biden coincides with a request for bank reference information from Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi. It is important to note that although the FBI informant tip mentioned alleged bribes paid to the Bidens by Burisma's owner in 2016, these claims remain unproven.

Furthermore, the bank records suggest that Hunter Biden was involved in receiving millions of dollars from CEFC China Energy. The internal warnings within the bank raised concerns about the funds flowing to Owasco PC without any apparent services rendered. Another Biden family-linked entity, Hudson West III, received a $5 million transfer from CEFC China Energy, with a significant portion eventually making its way to Owasco PC.

Additionally, previous bank records released by the Oversight Committee indicate that Joe Biden received payments of $40,000 and $200,000 from his brother James Biden. These transactions, coupled with alleged loan repayments and their connections to Chinese funds, have further fueled suspicions.

The White House maintains that there is evidence supporting the notion that the transfers were loan repayments. However, Republicans argue that loan agreement documents have not been made available, and the fact that the funds from James Biden were disbursed through a law firm rather than directly from Joe Biden himself adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

As the controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen how these bank records will impact the ongoing investigations and the Biden administration's credibility. The accusations of corruption will undoubtedly continue to be debated, and calls for accountability will persist.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the opinion of ICARO, or any of its affiliates.

Related