Congress is set to investigate a contract under which the Defense Department contracted with 22-year-old Efraim E. Diveroli’s AEY Inc. for $200 million to supply ammunition to the Afghan Army and police. Instead of supplying Hungarian bullets, the company allegedly committed a series of false statements to supply shoddy Chinese products.
This case is likely to turn from a political scandal to a legal case quickly. There are limitations on arms trading with China. Moreover, there is simple contract fraud that will likely be raised. Putting aside the age of Mr. Diveroli, it is notably that this company appears to have been founded by his father as a small printing business which gives the controversy a “Lord of War” flavor.
It also appears that the 22-year-old had a 25-year-old vice president.
His grandfather told WPLG that Diveroli is now in Turkey or Albania doing his “patriotic” duty. “He’s all over the world getting what the military needs,” Angelo Diveroli says.
But in a MySpace message exchange with Radar magazine, a person thought to be David Packouz, a 25-year-old who was AEY’s vice president, refers to Efraim Diveroli as “my former scumbag partner” and says he is motivated by money.
Click here for the grandfather’s interview.
Both the Army and House Oversight Committee are investigating.
For the full story, click here.
25 thoughts on ““Lad of War”: Administration Gave 22-Year-Old’s Company $200 Million for Faulty Chinese Ammunition”
I am posting at 5am on Saturday to commemorate the 11/15
Bartleboardings left the night before – as testament to my
You all persuade him to knock it off. Good luck!
I live on the water, my boat is ready, and the fish are bitin’…
dhspzuo pvbg vtpdc pfvo kxlmgenj wjagx kobxvrwa
That coding error explanation is not being accepted. Here’s the latest in what may turn out to be a very interesting investigation:
Correction, make that DOS instead of DOD:
Still catching up on my reading…
More info on the mysterious AEY and their SDB status:
The latest is that DOD is calling it a “coding error”.
Well, “fool me once…” but its unlikely this could occur twice as the code supposedly doesn’t legacy on to new applications.
Comments are closed.