Judge Bars Bid to Open Secord Bank Records

A federal judge refused on Thursday to order retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord to release records of foreign bank accounts that Senate investigators believe are tied to Iran- contra arms deals.

U.S. District Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr. denied a request by the Senate panel investigating the Iran-contra affair that he order Secord to sign a directive releasing records of bank accounts in Switzerland, Panama and the Cayman Islands.

“The court shall deny the committee’s application as violative of Secord’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination,” Robinson said.

Seek ‘Expedited Appeal’

Lance Morgan, a spokesman for the Senate committee, said the panel would seek an “expedited appeal.”

He added that the panel will continue its efforts to try to obtain bank records through other channels, which he would not name. The committee has voted to request limited immunity from prosecution for Albert A. Hakim, a Secord associate believed knowledgeable about the finances of the arms deals.

Lawyers for the Senate committee told Robinson on Monday that investigators believe the accounts were used in the sale of U.S. arms to Iran and diversion of profits to the Nicaraguan rebels.

The presidentially appointed Tower Commission said Secord, in addition to involvement with the Iran arms dealing, was involved in a network supporting the contras. It said contributions appeared to have been routed to the rebels through a series of private organizations, some of them linked to Secord-controlled bank accounts.

‘Links in Chain’

Robinson, in a brief opinion, said “the court need not resort to conjecture to determine how the communication sought from Secord could potentially incriminate him. . . .

“The links in the chain leading to the potentially incriminating bank records are clear, the first link being the compelled signing of the directive.”

Robinson said the second link would be use of the directive to authenticate the records. “The court would be completely ignoring reality if it were to say that Secord’s signature on the consent directive were not potentially incriminating,” Robinson said in the opinion.

“By signing the directive, Secord would be testifying just as clearly as if he were forced to verbally assert” its content, the opinion said.