Bank Statements Proprietary Trade Secrets……Says IDCEO – If China can see them so too can we!

llinois (ECWd) –

During our routine review of Auditor General audit reports for state agencies, we came across the 2022 audit report posted in 2023.  It contained some information we were not aware of, State IDCEO offices in Foreign Countries.

Foreign Offices
Western Europe – Brussels, Belgium
North Asia – Tokyo, Japan
Far East – Wanchai, Hong Kong (closed as of 7/1/18)
Central America/Caribbean – Mexico City, Mexico
Canada – Toronto, Ontario
China – Shanghai, China
Middle East – Jerusalem, Israel

Further research into this resulted in finding an Accountability for the Investment of Public Funds Act document.

“In conformity with the Accountability for the Investment of Public Funds Act (30 ILCS 237), the Department of Commerce and Economic
Opportunity (DCEO) discloses that all funds appropriated to and expended by DCEO are held in the State Treasury and therefore not held or invested by DCEO, with the exception of the funds held pursuant to 15 ILCS 405/21 (Imprest Accounts), disclosed below:”

Brussels, Belgium -Fortis Bank
Toronto, Canada – Bank of Montreal
Mexico City, Mexico – BBVA México
Tokyo, Japan – SMBC Trust Bank

The above funds are Imprest bank accounts held in the name of the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity in bank accounts outside of the United States of America for the purpose of paying local operational expenses of foreign offices. These accounts receive reimbursement from DCEO’s appropriations and funds held by the State Treasury.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the following:

1. A copy of the operational expenses of foreign offices for the last 12 months
2. A copy of the last 12 months of Imprest bank Account statements for the following:

Considering there were only 7 foreign offices listed in the audit, one would think that would not be a problem providing expense reports.  Why did we want them?  Because it appears these foreign funds are not being audited, as we found no reference to the actual expenditures of the foreign offices.

The legal counsel indicated the request was unduly burdensome, overly broad, categorical, and vague.  As if that is not laughable enough, he goes on to claim it is not clear which office we were seeking records for.  Considering we said, foreign offices, plural, one would think he could count to 7 and figure out the request was for all seven of the offices.   We note he failed to offer any opportunity to narrow the alleged unduly burdensome request, which is a violation of FOIA.

As if the response to item 1 was not enough ignorance of the law, this lawyer has now determined that bank statements are confidential.  He cites a trade secret exemption which does not apply to a bank statement in which a state agency is paying expense from.

“Please be advised for Part 2 of your request, the Department has determined that bank statements are confidential. 140/7(1) (g) exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business, and only insofar as the claim directly applies to the records requested.” Bank statements are both confidential and commercial.

We will be forwarding this to our attorneys, as I believe “we the people” have a right to know the details of a state agency’s expenditures and bank records, especially since they are operating in foreign countries, of which one, China, is our adversary.

A copy of the response can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.

We will continue to provide updates on this matter as it moves through the legal process.