The Office of International Treasury Control (OITC) is an organization that falsely claims to be associated with the United Nations (UN) and the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States. It—and people claiming to act on its authority—has attempted to deceive people and organizations in Ecuador, Fiji, and the United Kingdom. The UN and Federal Reserve have denied any knowledge of or connection with OITC.
The OITC's status
The OITC claims to be "an international institution registered under the United Nations (under UN Charter Control No: 10-60847) with substantial assets in its control". OITC spokesmen have claimed that the organization has been chartered by the United Nations under a secret protocol and that "until today [it has been] a secret organization known by some particularly in the highest levels of banking". The OITC claims that it was established by "Governments of the World of Legal Decadency".
However, it has consistently declined to publish any independent verification of its status, claiming that only individuals with a "level 3" or "level 5" security classification can see its "protocol for verification". No context or jurisdiction is given for which these "levels" apply. According to an OITC spokesman, "the protocol for verification can only be undertaken by a senior member of the Government or the Reserve Bank. That's why you will never find anything about it on the Internet." The UN is supposedly "legally bound" to respond to a verification request but only as long as the requisite protocols and procedures are followed, otherwise "no response will be received from the United Nations." The only way a verification request can be made is "through the UN headquarters in New York or Geneva, not via, or by, any sub-office of the UN.". According to Keith Scott, the OITC's "Chief of Cabinet", the OITC is run by the UN "under a concept of plausible deniability."
These claims have been denied by the United Nations. The UN has stated emphatically that "there is no such thing as a 'UN Charter Control Number,' quoted by the organisation to prove its validity." The UN's representative in Fiji was unable to "verify its existence and its security rating" and the UN's representative in Colombia has stated that all UN agencies are listed on the UN's official website and that they know of no secret agencies.
Scott claims that the OITC was set up and was controlled under the Federal Reserve under the Bank of International Settlements". OITC funds are said to be "held in an organization called the Institutional Parent Administration Account."
Scott has also stated that the OITC's funds are "held in the Institutional Parent Administration Account of the Federal Reserve System." However, the US government has stated that "within the Federal Reserve there exists no organization or department with the initials OITC, nor anything similar to this." The Bank for International Settlements – an international organization representing central banks – has also denied any knowledge of the OITC.
The physical location of the OITC is also unclear. According to a document produced by the OITC in March 2006, it has offices in Malaysia, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia and Ecuador. Elsewhere it has been claimed that the OITC has head offices in Singapore and Cambodia. However, the UK Daily Telegraph noted in 2005 that "the Bangkok number on their letterhead doesn't exist" and in April 2006 the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau found that the OITC "neither has any fixed address or office, nor are there any reliable contact addresses." Correspondence said to be from OITC officers lists Freeserve e-mail addresses as contacts. The organization's website, which purports to be authorized by various official organizations, is http://www.unoitc.org.
Speaking at a press conference in Fiji, self-described OITC representative Masi Kaumaitotoya told the local media: "Don't you ever, ever, ever again report negatively on OITC or we'll sue you for defamation." Individuals claiming to represent the OITC have also accused online critics of "serious defamation in the plural" .