NewzIntel.com

Category: Economy

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks Highlighting Cybercrime Enforcement at Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Good morning, and thank you, Jim [Lewis], for that kind introduction.  I am pleased to be here speaking to you today, and I want to thank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) for having me.  

    Over the past two and a half years, I have had the honor of serving as the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division – and with that, the responsibility of ensuring that the division and its over 700 prosecutors have the support and authorities they need to fulfill their responsibilities to the American people.  I have also had the opportunity to see first-hand the dedication, rigor, intelligence and respect that America’s prosecutors bring to their work every day.  As my time as the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division comes to a close, I am incredibly proud of where the division stands today and all that we have accomplished together.

    One constant truth about investigating and prosecuting crime is that it is never without its challenges, although the precise nature of the difficulties and obstacles we face changes with the times.  Today, some of the most significant hurdles we encounter relate to technology and the Internet.  

    Innovation in computing, the Internet, and related services has had tremendous benefits for our economy, our ability to connect with others, and the convenience, efficiency, and security of our everyday lives.  It has also transformed how we in law enforcement do our jobs by expanding our ability to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal activity.  

    However, these same innovations permit criminals to more easily victimize Americans, including from afar, while concealing their identities and enabling destruction of evidence.  We face an enormous task in responding to these new threats – ranging from botnets and ransomware to online child sexual exploitation and firearms trafficking, to name just a few – and that task is not getting any easier.  This morning I will focus on four challenges that have been and must continue to be the center of our work if we intend to succeed: 
    •    First, the growth of sophisticated, global cyber threats; 
    •    Second, dangerous loopholes in our legal authorities; 
    •    Third, the widespread use of warrant-proof encryption; and, 
    •    Fourth, inefficient cross-border access to electronic evidence.

    As I will explain in more detail, the past few years have marked some significant progress in some of these areas.  We have grown more nimble and effective in cooperative international law enforcement efforts to bring cyber criminals to justice and remediate cybercrime.  And we have managed to effect some targeted and common-sense improvements in legal authorities.  But in other areas, the challenges remain, and in some cases have become more prominent.  Let me begin with the threat.  The global nature of the Internet means that criminals now can easily victimize more people within the United States in more dangerous ways, all without ever setting foot here.  Some of the most significant criminal activity in recent years is the result of sophisticated criminal groups reaching across our borders from perceived safe harbors.  As we rely more and more on network communications to handle virtually every aspect of our lives, the cost of cybercrime will only rise – to over two trillion globally by 2019, according to some estimates – and the United States is a uniquely attractive target.

    We have responded first and foremost by aggressively identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting offenders.  This past October, for example, the Russian cybercriminal Roman Seleznev was convicted by a jury in Seattle.  Seleznev was a hacker who, from the other side of the world, pilfered data for millions of payment cards from the computer systems of small business owners across America – a crime that strikes at the trust and security of our everyday financial transactions.  Seleznev was the son of a member of the Russian parliament, and the Russian government filed diplomatic protests and tried to pressure us into releasing him.  But that’s not how justice in America works, and he is now in an American prison.

    We recognize that we cannot prosecute our way out of cybercrime, but prosecution must remain an integral component of our response to global cyber threats.  That is why foreign hackers like “Guccifer” – who hacked into the email and social media accounts of about a hundred Americans, including two former U.S. presidents – as well as Vladimir Drinkman and Dmitriy Smilianets – who, along with co-conspirators, conducted a worldwide hacking scheme that compromised more than 160 million credit card numbers – have likewise found themselves within the reach of American law enforcement.  Thanks to the work of our colleagues in the National Security Division, the same holds true for individuals like Su Bin – who conspired with Chinese military hackers to steal cutting-edge U.S. aircraft designs – and Ardit Ferizi – who shared stolen PII belonging to 1,300 U.S. military and government personnel with a member of ISIL, for publication on a hit list.  All have now been brought to the United States to face justice.  

    The department’s strong track record in this area is a critical deterrent to would-be attackers.  Over the last twenty years, for example, our Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) – the centerpiece of our prosecutorial response to criminal cyber threats – has successfully prosecuted cases involving more than one billion stolen pieces of information, including payment card data, email addresses and social security numbers – more than three pieces of data for every American alive today.

    Our international partnerships make this work possible.  And they have been key in another way as well.  Even when prosecution is not yet an option – for example, because we have been unable to identify or apprehend a criminal target – we have developed operational expertise in disrupting cybercriminal infrastructure in the United States and abroad.  For example, we have worked hand-in-hand with our foreign partners to address technical threats like botnets, so-called “bulletproof” hosts, Darknet markets and international hacking forums.  

    Indeed, just last week, the department led a multinational operation to dismantle a vast network of dedicated criminal servers known as “Avalanche,” which allegedly hosted more than two dozen of the world’s most dangerous and persistent malware campaigns.  The Avalanche network served clients operating as many as 500,000 infected computers on a daily basis and is associated with monetary losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide.  We were joined in this effort by investigators and prosecutors from more than 40 jurisdictions across the globe.  We must maintain existing international law enforcement cooperation – and develop new mechanisms to work with foreign partners – if we hope to continue these successes.

    These efforts have also benefitted from growth in our technical and investigative capacity.  The Criminal Division has steadily increased resources for CCIPS, along with its in-house Cybercrime Lab, over the last two years.  The Cybercrime Lab has become the go-to resource across U.S. law enforcement for intractable problems in accessing and understanding digital evidence, whether that means uncovering evidence that a defendant accessed online terrorist radicalization materials to rebut a claim of entrapment, or cracking passwords to dozens of devices that hold key evidence of serious crimes.

    We have also found that augmenting our own expertise and legal authorities with insight from private sector institutions allows us to identify and develop new, creative responses.  For example, in 2014, the FBI, in conjunction with a coalition of nearly a dozen foreign countries and a group of elite computer security firms, dismantled the Gameover Zeus botnet.  That botnet, which infected more than one million computers around the world, inflicted over $100 million in losses on American victims alone, and was responsible for the spread of the Cryptolocker ransomware.  The Gameover Zeus operation represents what we can achieve when law enforcement agencies collaborate with private sector experts, and indeed, many private organizations provided similar assistance in the recent Avalanche take-down.  I hope that it will continue to serve as a model for the department’s future work.

    This relationship works in both directions.  The investigative experience of our CCIPS prosecutors can offer important lessons for private sector entities.  In addition, navigating the federal laws that govern network monitoring practices – laws in which CCIPS specializes – can be fraught for organizations seeking to improve their cybersecurity.  That is why, two years ago, we created the Cybersecurity Unit, a group of CCIPS prosecutors who can leverage their case-related experience to develop and share practical cybersecurity advice with the private sector.  The Unit has also played an integral role in implementation of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).  So not only have we benefitted from private sector experts for our operational needs, but we have made a practice of sharing our knowledge base as well.

    Even as the department addresses technical obstacles to preventing and prosecuting cybercrime, however, we confront a second challenge: arbitrary gaps in the law that frustrate some of our most pressing investigations.  One example of such a loophole was the venue provision of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

    As that Rule existed prior to Dec. 1, 2016, when law enforcement sought court approval for a search warrant, it generally was required to seek authorization from a court sitting in the same geographic district where the property to be searched was located.   This Rule made perfect sense in dealing with the physical world.  But in the cyber-world, we increasingly face scenarios where criminals use technology to hide the location of their computers, meaning that we could not know where the computers were located.  In those circumstances, federal law did not clearly identify which judge could authorize a search.   

    Similarly, we regularly encounter crimes like mass hacking through botnets that are carried out in multiple districts at once, all across the country.  But in order to respond in a timely, comprehensive manner, the prior version of the Rule arguably required authorities to obtain a warrant in each district – up to 94 in all, across 9 time zones, ranging from the Virgin Islands to Guam.  

    Last week, a three year effort, spearheaded by the Criminal Division, and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, culminated in a targeted, procedural fix to the venue provisions of the Rule to ensure that technology does not render our investigative abilities obsolete.  The update to the Rule does not alter the probable cause or other standards we must meet to obtain a search warrant.   What the Rule does change is that now, when criminals hide the location of their computers through anonymizing technology, we don’t have to figure out in which federal district the computers are physically located before we can act to stop criminal activity.  Likewise, when a criminal deploys a botnet that indiscriminately infects computers nationwide – as many botnets now do – we don’t have to go to as many as 94 different judges. 

    The need to update Rule 41 was not theoretical.  Today, dozens of websites on Tor – a proxy network – openly distribute images of child rape and sexual exploitation, where they are frequented by tens of thousands of pedophiles.  These sites can thrive in the open because proxy networks, like Tor, hide the locations of the criminals’ servers and the identities of their administrators and users.  While law enforcement – and the general public – can easily find images of child sexual exploitation by visiting one of these sites, we often cannot locate and shut down the websites or identify and apprehend the abusers.  More troubling, the child victims stand little chance of rescue.

    The recent investigation of “Playpen,” a Tor site used by more than 100,000 pedophiles to encourage child sexual abuse and trade sexually explicit images of that abuse, illustrates why a Rule 41 fix was necessary.  In that case, authorities were able to wrest control of the site from the administrators, and then obtained court approval to use a remote search tool to retrieve limited information, including the user’s IP address, only if a user accessed child pornography on the site.  This enabled a traditional, real-world investigation, leading to more than 200 active prosecutions and the identification or rescue of at least 49 American children who were subject to sexual abuse.  

    Yet in some of the resulting cases, federal courts relying on the language of the prior version of Rule 41 found that even though the probable cause and other standards for obtaining a warrant were satisfied, evidence obtained in searches nevertheless had to be excluded because the judges who issued warrants lacked venue over the computers, which turned out to be physically located outside their geographic districts.  This is a perverse result, as it would mean that criminals who are savvy enough to hide their locations – which is not difficult given current technologies – could place themselves beyond the reach of law enforcement.  

    This is a good example of why the amendments to Rule 41 are such a crucial step forward.  They make clear which courts are available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment, without altering in any way the substantive requirements for – or privacy protections provided by – a warrant.  This will ensure that criminals who use anonymizing technologies are not immune from justice, and that threats like botnets are not too big to investigate and remediate effectively.

    This fix is a not a cure-all, however.  Our response to cyber threats requires revisiting laws that simply did not anticipate and cannot adjust to modern technology.  We must continue to move forward – not backward – to ensure that our laws protect Americans from criminals, and not the other way around.

    I now want to turn to some challenges that, despite the best efforts of many, will continue to confront policymakers in the years to come.  As society’s use of computers and the Internet has grown, so too has the importance of digital evidence in criminal investigations.  In nearly every criminal investigation we undertake at the federal level – from homicides and kidnappings to drug trafficking, organized crime, financial fraud and child exploitation – critical information comes from smart phones, computers and online communications, often instead of physical evidence.  Yet, these materials are increasingly unavailable to law enforcement as a result of certain implementations of encryption, even when we have a warrant to examine them.

    This is because, in an attempt to market products and services as protective of personal privacy and data security, companies increasingly are offering products with built-in encryption technologies that preclude access to data even when a court has issued a search warrant.  Service providers with more than a billion user accounts, that transmit tens of billions of messages per day around the world, now advertise themselves as unable to comply with warrants.  And device manufacturers that have placed hundreds of millions of products in the market have embraced the same principle.  We in law enforcement often describe this sort of encryption as “warrant-proof encryption.”  

    Let me be clear: the Criminal Division is on the front lines of the fight against cybercrime.  We recognize that the development and adoption of strong encryption is essential to counteracting cyber threats and to promote our overall safety and privacy.  But certain implementations of encryption pose an undeniable and growing threat to our ability to protect the American people.  Our inability to access such data can stop our investigations and prosecutions in their tracks.

    Inaction is not a suitable response.  Our occasional success in accessing information protected by seemingly “warrant-proof encryption” is unpredictable and inadequate.  There are devices in evidence lockers across the country that remain locked.  

    As the President reminded us recently, the Government has different responsibilities – a different “balance sheet” and different “stakeholders” – than a corporation.  There is nothing wrong with companies pursuing profits and marketing strategies, but no one should expect that they will take into account all of the societal interests that are at stake.  And that is especially true for our public safety mission.  Our ability to protect Americans from crime has become dependent, in thousands of cases, on the business decisions of for-profit corporations.  More troublingly, even when companies have the technical ability to reasonably assist us in accessing encrypted information, they have refused to do so for fear of “tarnishing” their image.  Regardless of which side of this issue you are on, we can all agree that market-driven decisions are not and have never been a substitute for sound public safety policies. 

    Business decisions made by for-profit companies have had enormous effects on our public safety in other ways as well.  Data held by major Internet service providers can be crucial to identifying and holding accountable the perpetrators of virtually every federal crime we handle.  Increasingly, however, American providers and other providers subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are storing such information outside the United States, and not always at rest and in the same location.  The data can be partitioned and stored in multiple locations, or moved about on an ongoing basis, and some providers may not even know where all data relating to a particular user is at a given time.  

    It is this last challenge – foreign-stored digital evidence – that I will close with today.  The department has worked diligently to increase the cross-border availability of data, through mechanisms like the 24/7 Network, which facilitates the preservation of digital evidence, as well as mutual legal assistance treaties and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which enhance international cooperation in obtaining that evidence.  The Criminal Division has also directed additional resources toward a dedicated cyber mutual legal assistance unit in our Office of International Affairs, which has seen a 1,000 percent increase in incoming requests for computer records since 2000.

    But while these are important crime-fighting tools, they have significant shortcomings.  The United States has mutual legal assistance treaties with less than half the countries in the world, some of which place limitations on when assistance is available or the types of evidence that can be obtained.  Even then, obtaining evidence can take months, if not years.  Ireland, for example, reports that in routine cases it takes 15 to 18 months to execute a request for assistance from a foreign country.  In less experienced or less cooperative countries, the process can take even longer.  Sometimes we never receive a response at all.  

    Recently, the difficulties caused by foreign-stored data for public safety have become more acute.  In July, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in the so-called “Microsoft Ireland” case, held that U.S. authorities cannot use a search warrant issued by a U.S. court pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to compel a U.S. service provider, such as Microsoft, to produce data that it chooses to store for its own business purposes (and typically without the knowledge or input of its subscribers) outside the United States.

    So, what is already a difficult and time-consuming process of gathering electronic evidence may now also become an impossible one, for both the United States and our partners.  Since the Microsoft decision was handed down, U.S. providers such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have refused to produce information that they have chosen to store abroad in response to search warrants issued by courts even outside the Second Circuit.  This has been the case even in instances where the account-holder was an American citizen residing in the United States, and when the crime under investigation is carried out on American soil.  And this includes warrants obtained on behalf of foreign countries pursuant to mutual legal assistant requests.

    U.S. law generally does not require our providers to store this data in a particular location or make it accessible in any particular way.  But as a result, the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate serious crime may now be determined entirely by a provider’s data management practices, well-intentioned or not.  One major American provider, for example, is unable to determine the country in which foreign-stored data is located; and even if it could, the data is frequently moved and may not be in the same country from day to day.  Under the Second Circuit’s decision, a SCA warrant is not available.  But sending an MLAT request to a foreign country could result – after months of delay – in a notification that the relevant data is no longer there.

    It is for this reason that, in October, the department filed a petition for the case to be reheard by the entire Second Circuit en banc.  It is also why we intend to submit legislation to Congress to address the decision’s significant public safety implications.  This issue must be resolved before we move to other important initiatives, such as legislation to implement a cross-border data agreement with the United Kingdom.

    Looking forward, I cannot predict how the rehearing petition, or the broader concerns implicated by the Microsoft decision, will play out.  And I suspect that, whether the issue relates to warrant-proof encryption or cross-border access to evidence, reaching a resolution will be challenging.  But these decisions must be made in the policy arena, not by the private sector alone.  We cannot allow changing technologies or the economic interests of the private sector to overwhelm larger policy issues relating to the needs of public safety and national security.  And we must let government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities to protect the American people.

    I know that the panel to follow will focus on some of these challenges for the future, but let me offer my own thoughts here.  In each of these areas, we must proceed thoughtfully and balance multiple different legitimate interests.  Yet several basic principles should be obvious.  First, sitting back and doing nothing is not an acceptable option.  The world is changing around us, and those seeking to do harm are evolving with it; if those responsible for ensuring public safety do not have the same ability to adapt, public safety will suffer.  Second, these changes pose policy challenges, and we need to develop policy responses.  Rather than let evolutions in technology dictate our responses, we must think ahead as a society and develop appropriate frameworks to address new and upcoming challenges before they become crises.  And finally, when there are multiple interests at stake – public safety, cybersecurity, international comity and civil rights and civil liberties – we cannot allow the most consequential decisions to be made by a single stakeholder, or leave them to the whim of the commercial marketplace.  We would never tolerate that approach in other areas of importance to society, and we should not do so here.  Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks Before the National Asian American Coalition and National Diversity Coalition

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you Faith for those kind words and for your outstanding leadership of the National Asian American Coalition (NAAC).  The NAAC and its partners in the National Diversity Coalition have become important voices and strong advocates for communities – in particular, minority and poor communities – that far too often go unheard in our society.  Day in and day out, you provide hope and a helping hand to many hardworking Americans struggling to attain the American dream.  In my three years in this job, one highlight is meeting regularly with your coalition.  You are always informed and effective advocates on behalf of your communities.

    But I appreciate that advocating on behalf of consumers when you visit D.C. is only a small part of what the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do.  You provide training to the laid-off father searching for a job that will put food on the table and a roof over his family’s head.  You provide financial advice and resources to the mother hoping to start her own business.  You help families purchase their first home or refinance their mortgage so they can hold onto the home they purchased with their life savings.  You inspire countless young people to dream big and to strive for excellence by providing them with mentoring, after-school programs and scholarships.  I spoke with some of these students this morning.  I believe, as President Obama has noted, that “[t]here is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child’s God-given potential.”

    The mission of the Antitrust Division also involves ensuring economic opportunity for all consumers.  Our antitrust laws seek to promote fairness in our marketplaces, safeguard the economic freedom of our citizens and strengthen our economy through vigorous competition.  Our first antitrust law – the Sherman Act – was passed 125 years ago.  That law seeks to protect American consumers and businesses from the harm to competition that results when too much economic power is held by only a few corporations and individuals.  The Sherman Act became a vital tool under President Theodore Roosevelt – a progressive reformer often referred to as the “trust buster” – as he spearheaded the movement to bring fairness to the marketplace and to ensure that consumers benefit from healthy competition for their hard earned dollars.  Some years later, his distant cousin – President Franklin D. Roosevelt – established the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department to help continue the fight to protect hardworking Americans from the higher prices and reduced innovation that can result from the consolidation of economic power in a few hands.

    Here are a couple of examples of the Antitrust Division’s work.  Earlier this year, I stood with Attorney General Loretta Lynch when she announced the criminal guilty pleas of five of the world’s largest and most influential financial institutions – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, UBS and The Royal Bank of Scotland – for manipulating the massive foreign currency exchange market.  As part of their guilty pleas, these institutions were required to pay almost $3 billion in criminal fines, including the largest antitrust fines ever obtained in the Justice Department’s 145-year history.

    A few years ago, we uncovered international conspiracies to fix the prices for all kinds of automobile parts, including seatbelts, airbags and antilock brake systems.  This illegal conduct made it more costly for companies like General Motors, Ford and Toyota to manufacture cars.  At the end of the day, we all know who paid the price for these cartels – the American consumer.  As of today, we have charged 58 corporate executives and 37 companies and obtained more than $2.6 billion in criminal fines.  And we are not done yet.

    Sometimes antitrust crimes are local.  Here in Northern California, our San Francisco office has spent the last several years prosecuting individuals who rigged the bids on foreclosed homes being sold at public auctions.  As you know, many Californians lost their homes during the Great Recession because they could not afford to pay their mortgages.  Some real estate investors saw the misfortune of these homeowners as an opportunity to line their pockets by agreeing not to bid against each other when these homes were auctioned.  They took turns winning these auctions at suppressed prices and deprived the banks and homeowners of the benefits of a competitive auction.  Thus far, we have charged more than 110 individuals who engaged in this type of bid rigging here in Northern California and other parts of the country.  Our San Francisco office also successfully prosecuted a conspiracy to fix the prices of liquid display panels sold worldwide.  LCDs are used in all kinds of electronic products, including flat screen televisions, computer monitors and tablets.  This conspiracy made it more expensive for companies to manufacture electronics, which, in turn, caused millions of Americans to pay higher prices.

    These cases showcase the Antitrust Division’s strong record of criminal antitrust enforcement during the Obama Administration.  Since President Obama took office, we have charged over 400 individuals and 140 corporations with criminal misconduct.  We obtained over $8.5 billion in criminal fines and penalties.  These large criminal fines and penalties serve an important deterrent effect because they directly affect something that corporate executives and investors care deeply about: a company’s bottom line.  But another thing to note: the criminal fines obtained by the Antitrust Division provide funding for the Justice Department’s Crime Victim’s Fund, which helps victims of all types of crime obtain the medical, legal and financial services that they need to move forward with their lives.  In California, this fund has helped victims of child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault.

    We challenge other misconduct that raises – or threatens to raise – the prices that you as a consumer pay.  Here are some recent examples.

    Think about e-books, a popular alternative to hard copies.  Because they cost less to produce, they should be cheaper.  And until early 2010 they were.  Suddenly, prices shot up.  Why?  Because certain book publishers and Apple entered into an illegal agreement to raise prices.  We sued Apple and the publishers to put an end to their unlawful coordination.

    What happened to e-book prices when the publishers and Apple were forced to compete?  Prices for e-books fell.  In 2010, when the price fixing conspiracy was in place, you often had to pay $12.99 or $14.99 for a best-seller.  After we obtained judgments against Apple and the publishers, prices for best-sellers fell significantly, with many available for $9.99 or less.  Thus, competition, once restored, worked to benefit you and other consumers.

    But what about those who were victims of higher prices during the e-books conspiracy?  Based on the facts we developed, state attorneys general and private plaintiffs have thus far secured over $160 million in refunds for the victims of this conspiracy.  These refunds were directly credited to the consumers’ accounts with Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Apple.

    At the Antitrust Division we also worry about mergers between competitors that put the American public at risk of higher prices and lower quality products.  That was our concern a few years ago when AT&T wanted to buy its rival, T-Mobile.  AT&T claimed that by eliminating T-Mobile as a competitor, you, as a consumer, would be better off.  Our job at the Antitrust Division is to kick the tires on those claims and make sure they are accurate.  Here, the facts we uncovered told us that the elimination of T-Mobile as a competitor risked having you pay higher prices and receiving worse contract terms for mobile service.  We challenged the deal and AT&T ended up abandoning it.

    And guess what happened next?  Just like e-books, when the antitrust laws are enforced, competition flourishes.  T-Mobile went back to competing to win your business.  It spent billions of dollars improving the products it offers; it fought to woo customers by offering lower prices and better services; and it gave customers freedom of choice by offering to pay the early termination fees for those who switched to T-Mobile.

    And T-Mobile’s competitors were compelled to respond.  Sprint began offering lower prices and better plans.  AT&T targeted T-Mobile customers with a $200 credit, plus money for smartphone trade-ins, if they switched to AT&T.  T-Mobile responded by offering plans that allow customers to upgrade their phones twice a year.  AT&T, Verizon and Sprint all felt compelled to match these plans.

    A couple of months ago, in one of his final speeches as the lawyer for the American people, former Attorney General Holder summed up the role and purpose of antitrust enforcement.  He said: “In the appropriate enforcement of the antitrust laws we make real the promise of our democracy and our founding documents.  Vigorous competition in all spheres is what makes this nation exceptional.  It makes progress more likely and promotes the general welfare.”

    The hardworking men and women of the Antitrust Division remain true to this mission.  We should be proud of them and grateful to them.  They make the economy work for all of us.

    Similarly, we are grateful for the work that the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do on a daily basis to help some of our most vulnerable citizens and communities.  Together we can help to promote marketplaces where companies compete on price and quality for the hard earned dollars of American consumers.

    Thank you for your time today and congratulations on organizing another great conference.

    AAG Baer Remarks to NAAC 10-23-15 (53.39 KB)

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Outcrop Silver to Present at the Metals & Mining Virtual Investor Conference

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Outcrop Silver (TSXV: OCG, OTCQX: OCGSF, DE: MRG) (“Outcrop Silver”) today announced that Ian Harris, President and CEO, will participate in the Metals & Mining Virtual Investor Conference on February 12-13, 2025.

    PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2025
    TIME: 3:00 pm ET
    LINK: https://bit.ly/3WN4CNo

    Outcrop Silver invites individual and institutional investors, as well as advisors and analysts, to attend real-time, interactive presentations on VirtualInvestorConferences.com

    Investors are invited to ask the company questions in real-time. If attendees are not able to join the event live on the day of the conference, an archived webcast will also be made available after the event.

    The management team is available for 1×1 meetings.

    It is recommended that investors pre-register and run the online system check to expedite participation and receive event updates.

    Investors can learn more about the event at www.virtualinvestorconferences.com.
    Details of these and other investor events are available on the “Events” section of Outcrop Silver’s website at www.outcropsilver.com

    Company Highlights

    • Flagship Project: Advancing the high-grade Santa Ana primary silver project in Colombia, recognized as one of the world’s highest grade primary silver projects.
    • Resource Quality: Indicated resource grade stands at 614 g/t AgEq.
    • Resource Categorization: 64% of the silver equivalent ounces are classified as indicated.
    • Resource Composition: The total mineral resources comprise 73% silver and 27% gold
    • Metallurgical Excellence: Achieved outstanding recoveries of 96.3% for silver and 98.5% for gold through advanced gravimetric and flotation methods.
    • Pathway to Growth: Recent drilling extended high-grade mineralization by 9 kilometres south of the resource area. Ongoing expansion drilling is complemented by efforts to de-risk the project through strengthened ESG performance, engineering advancements, and permitting progress.

    About Outcrop Silver

    Outcrop Silver is a leading explorer and developer focused on advancing its flagship Santa Ana high-grade silver project in Colombia. Leveraging a disciplined and seasoned team of professionals with decades of experience in the region, Outcrop Silver is dedicated to expanding current mineral resources through strategic exploration initiatives.

    At the core of our operations is a commitment to responsible mining practices and community engagement, underscoring our approach to sustainable development. Our expertise in navigating complex geological and market conditions enables us to consistently identify and capitalize on opportunities to enhance shareholder value. With a deep understanding of the Colombian mining landscape and a track record of successful exploration, Outcrop Silver is poised to transform the Santa Ana project into a significant silver producer, contributing positively to the local economy and setting new standards in the mining industry.

    CONTACTS:
    Outcrop Silver
    Ian Harris, Chief Executive Officer                       Kathy Li, Vice President Investor Relations
    +1 604 638 2545                                                       +1 778 783 2818
    harris@outcropsilver.com                                     li@outcropsilver.com www.outcropsilver.com

    About Virtual Investor Conferences®
    Virtual Investor Conferences (VIC) is the leading proprietary investor conference series that provides an interactive forum for publicly traded companies to seamlessly present directly to investors.

    Providing a real-time investor engagement solution, VIC is specifically designed to offer companies more efficient investor access. Replicating the components of an on-site investor conference, VIC offers companies enhanced capabilities to connect with investors, schedule targeted one-on-one meetings and enhance their presentations with dynamic video content. Accelerating the next level of investor engagement, Virtual Investor Conferences delivers leading investor communications to a global network of retail and institutional investors.

    Virtual Investor Conferences
    John M. Viglotti
    SVP Corporate Services, Investor Access
    OTC Markets Group
    (212) 220-2221
    johnv@otcmarkets.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: INEOS cuts brutal blow for community

    Source: Scottish Greens

    05 Feb 2025 Economy Energy

    Local Green MSP reacts to brutal INEOS cuts at Grangemouth

    More in Economy

    INEOS has announced redundancies of over 400 staff members at their Grangemouth refinery in central Scotland.

    Gillian Mackay, the Scottish Greens MSP for Central Scotland, grew up just 200 yards from the refinery.

    Ms Mackay said:

    “This is a brutal blow for Scotland, but particularly for the community I grew up in and the workers who I know well. I know how hurt the community feels at this time; my thoughts are with everyone.

    “All of us in the town know somebody who is employed directly or indirectly by the refinery. They’re the ones now suffering. Many people will be extremely worried and possibly angry about what will happen next. I am too, I feel the same.

    “This is the opposite of the just transition that is needed for the site and for Grangemouth. We have known for a long time that change is needed. The workers at Grangemouth are some of the most talented and skilled anywhere in Scotland, they must be at the heart of shaping Scotland’s green industrial future. Scotland deserves better; what is happening in Grangemouth is a warning sign for the lack of government support for the just transition in Scotland.

    “Our community has yet again been let down by both governments. Politicians of all parties need to step up and work with trade unions and the community to do everything they can to support local people.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Representative of Austria Presents Credentials

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    (Based on information provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service)

    The new Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, Gregor W. Koessler, presented his credentials to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Between 2020 and his most recent appointment, Mr. Koessler served as Director-General for Bilateral Affairs and European Union Common Foreign Policy in his country’s Ministry of European and International Affairs. He was the Director of the Austrian Foreign Minister’s Cabinet from 2019 to 2020.

    Prior to that, he was his country’s Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Non-resident Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman and the Republic of Yemen from 2012 to 2019.  From 2009 to 2012, he was Head of the Directorate for Property Management in his country’s Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs, and from 2007 to 2008, he was Head of Cabinet for the State Secretary in that Ministry.

    His other roles included Head of Cabinet for the Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe from 2002 to 2007 and Director of Cabinet for the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1999 to 2002.

    Mr. Koessler holds master’s degrees in contemporary history and philosophy from the Leopold Franzens University of Innsbruck, Austria, and in international economics and conflict management from the Johns Hopkins University, United States.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Observer for International Committee of Red Cross Presents Letter of Appointment

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    (Based on information provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service) 

    The new Permanent Observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Elyse Mosquini, presented her letter of appointment to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Prior to her appointment, Ms. Mosquini served at the organization in various roles including as Secretary-General to the Assembly, ad interim, between April and December 2024, and Chief of Staff to the Office of the President from March 2019 to March 2024.  She was Deputy Head of Resource Mobilization from June 2018 to March 2019 and Deputy Regional Director for Movement Affairs for the Near and Middle East between November 2016 and June 2018. 

    Prior to her career with ICRC, Ms. Mosquini worked as coordinator at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent between June 2014 and November 2016.  She also worked in multiple positions for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), including as Senior Disaster Law Officer, Legal Counsel, Senior Humanitarian Affairs Adviser, Senior Legal Office and Legal Delegate — all spanning between July 2005 and June 2014. 

    Ms. Mosquini has a graduate law degree from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and a bachelor’s degree in economics, political science and international relations from the University of Wisconsin, United States.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: AFSCME’s Saunders: Federal funding for transportation should not be used as a cudgel against communities

    Source: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union

    WASHINGTON – AFSCME President Lee Saunders released the following statement in response to the USDOT memo re-directing federal funds away from communities:

    “Investing in our nation’s transportation is essential for maintaining strong communities and a vibrant economy. It is absurd to re-direct taxpayer dollars away from our communities because of arbitrary standards such as marriage and birth rates; or to use federal funding policies as a cudgel to push states and localities to fall in line on the president’s policies. Clearly, this isn’t about public safety or transportation. It’s about dividing Americans while those in power work to enrich billionaires and hope that we don’t notice.

    “Meanwhile, the workers who have dedicated their careers to maintaining our transportation infrastructure are being attacked. Our economy and working families will pay the price if this continues.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the College of Europe’s Global Competition Law Centre

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Designing a System to Secure the Fair Administration of Competition Laws

    I am delighted to be with you today to discuss how competition authorities can promote fundamental due process in competition investigation and enforcement.  Ten years ago this topic would not have been high on the agenda for competition enforcers.  Today, in a globalized economy with over 130 competition enforcers, almost everyone agrees that convergence on due process is an important aspect of competition enforcement.  So the question is not whether we should promote due process, but how best to do so.  While guidelines, recommendations, and best practices are useful and important, the international competition community is ready to do more.  We should actively promote effective compliance to fundamental due process through a multilateral framework on procedures through which parties commit to basic fundamental norms, and that framework should be open for signature by all competition authorities.

    To ensure due process for all, it is essential to have a system in place to promote compliance.  Former Irish Foreign Minister Seán MacBride, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a founder of the European Convention on Human Rights, noted that guarantees such as the “right to the fair administration of justice” will “never be adequately or efficiently protected without a system of machinery to enforce their application, a system of implementation for the rights declared.”  Today, I would like to discuss recent international efforts to design a system to secure the administration of competition laws according to due process principles.      

    For years, many jurisdictions, including the United States, have promoted due process in competition investigations and enforcement at home and abroad.  Former Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer emphasized that “in a global economy, competition and consumers are best served where corporations and individuals have confidence that they will be treated fairly wherever they do business.”  Adherence to due process principles helps agencies reach the right decision and improves the quality of antitrust enforcement overall.  Due process also enhances the reputation of competition authorities. 

    Many competition authorities around the world have joined in this effort to promote due process, including initiatives to promote due process at the ICN and OECD, leading to the current proposal, the Multilateral Framework on Procedures.

    As many of you know, in early June 2018, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim discussed publicly our months-long cooperation with leading antitrust agencies on an initiative to craft the Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (“MFP”).  The MFP’s goal is to promote global due process in antitrust enforcement and thereby further improve cooperation among antitrust agencies around the world.  The United States and our partners around the world agree that basic minimal due process protections are of fundamental importance in antitrust enforcement.

    The goal of the MFP is to establish minimal procedural norms that are truly universal.  The MFP is animated by fundamental norms, which are accepted widely across the globe and that most competition agencies already recognize.  The MFP will combine this set of universal procedural norms with an adherence and review mechanism, under which the participants commit to these norms and agree to cooperate with each other regarding their compliance.

    The fundamental principles set forth in the MFP were derived from the texts of competition chapters in several existing bilateral and regional agreements, as well as from the work related to due process conducted by international organizations such as the OECD and the ICN, in conjunction with an examination of procedures and practices of competition authorities around the world.

    The draft text captures universal principles, using language that is versatile enough to cover both common as well as civil law jurisdictions, administrative as well as prosecutorial systems, and older as well as younger competition agencies.

    The core principles identified in the MFP include basic commitments regarding non-discrimination, transparency, meaningful engagement, timely resolution, confidentiality protections, avoidance of conflicts of interest, proper notice, opportunity to defend, access to counsel, and independent judicial review of enforcement decisions.

    The adherence and review mechanism under the MFP includes bilateral discussions and consultations between participating agencies, reporting by participants on the working of the MFP principles, as well as a proposed mechanism to review periodically any changes as may be needed.  The adherence and review mechanisms under the MFP are an important step forward towards a mutual commitment amongst agency partners.  The MFP also represents a substantial positive effort towards global respect for competition enforcement and the overall culture of competition we collectively have sought to promote. 

    The MFP is not a binding agreement in the international sense, but adhering to the framework is important, because breaches of a promise can have reputational consequences.  As Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in June, “The rich network of relationships ensures that reputation matters, and that the promise to abide by an obligation becomes a potent means of enhancing compliance.”

    Dozens of competition agencies from around the world have been spending countless hours and many months working on the MFP.  The initial discussions culminated in the “Paris Draft” of the MFP, a remarkable document that reflects the current practices of many leading competition authorities around the world.

    Over the summer, further discussions ensued among all interested antitrust agencies worldwide, including discussions with agencies on the sidelines of the Fordham Conference in New York in early September.  A revised draft of the MFP was circulated recently, reflecting suggestions made at New York and since.  We look forward to meeting with those interested in joining the MFP on the margins of the OECD in late November.

    There has been widespread support for the MFP from numerous agencies around the world.  We are delighted that so many countries are committed to the MFP and recognize its value, and will continue efforts to further improve it and move toward its enactment.

    To date, the vast majority of agencies have expressed strong support for the MFP.  A few agencies, however, have expressed some concerns with respect to the MFP structure and review mechanism.  Let me address the more salient concerns. 

    First, a few agencies had raised questions about the need for mandatory review mechanisms.  In general, a review mechanism is a key component of any agreement such as the MFP.  The goal of the MFP is to strike a constructive path, promoting incremental progress through an acceptable implementation mechanism.

    In light of these concerns, the review mechanisms in the MFP have been calibrated so that they are meaningful, but not burdensome.  For example, unlike certain treaties, there are no mechanisms for binding dispute settlement, third-party mediation, independent expert reports, or private complaint procedures.  Instead, there are modest proposals that include mechanisms for dialogue, agency self-reporting on adherence, and periodic assessments of the functioning of the framework, only as needed.  This will allow for advancing the shared goals towards due process norms.

    It is important to note that although meaningful review mechanisms of agreements relating to due process may appear novel in the antitrust context, they are routine in other contexts.  For example, meaningful review of a country’s compliance with fundamental due process norms is common in the context of investment protections, human rights, anti-corruption, trade, tax, and development assistance.  

    In fact, even in the antitrust context, review mechanisms are not new.  For example, in free trade agreements there are consultation provisions in various competition chapters.  Likewise, in 2006 the European Competition Network (ECN) adopted the ECN Model Leniency Programme to “harmonise the key elements of leniency policies within the ECN.”  In 2009, the ECN published an assessment report to “provide an overview of the status of convergence of the applicable provisions contained in the ECN leniency programmes.”  If a network of regional competition authorities can agree to periodically assess the state of procedural convergence of their leniency programs, it seems only reasonable to have competition authorities periodically assess the state of procedural convergence on fundamental due process.     

    A second issue presented related to the possibility that the MFP can be confused to create a new international organization.  The language has been modified to make it clear that the MFP does not create a new international organization.  Instead, the MFP is a new multilateral arrangement for adherence to fundamental due process norms by the signatory agencies.

    A third issue was whether certain competition agencies have the capacity to sign at the agency level.  This was a fair concern, and we are pleased to have revised the draft to make clear that agencies can either sign or join the MFP by sending a letter through ICN providing notice of adherence.  This is a common practice that has been employed previously in many contexts, including in the antitrust context.  This change should allow any competition agency interested in joining the MFP to do so.

    I should also note that although all of the interested agencies working on the MFP hope that every agency adheres to these principles, that the MFP is voluntary.  Only agencies that want to join will be subject to the norms.  Also, the MFP allows an agency to take a reservation if their law allows them to comply with almost everything but prevents compliance with a specific provision. 

    The international community can and should seek to promote convergence on core principles, while respecting diversity on the margins.  That is what the MFP does.

    Finally, let me address the issue that Commissioner Margrethe Vestager raised in her remarks at the Georgetown University conference regarding the relationship between the MFP and international organizations such as OECD and ICN.  The Antitrust Division fully supports initiatives by OECD, ICN and other international organizations to promote due process.  Indeed, the substantive principles set forth in the MFP are fully in line with – and, in fact, complement – these initiatives. 

    The ICN already recognizes regional competition networks like the ECN, bilateral and trilateral dialogues like those held by the North American partners last week in Mexico, competition chapters in free trade agreements such as KORUS and USMCA, and hundreds of cooperation agreements between competition authorities.  Despite these developments, the ICN is as strong as ever, and the MFP will further complement its success.  Indeed, the ICN expressly anticipates initiatives such as the MFP. The ICN Framework provides that “where the ICN reaches consensus on recommendations … it is left to its members to decide whether and how to implement the recommendations, for example, through unilateral, bilateral or multilateral arrangements.” 

    From the start, the MFP has been designed to go beyond mere guidance on procedural fairness.  The MFP will reflect the commitment of its participants to uphold fundamental due process norms.

    There are various other reasons why we believe the MFP is needed and does not duplicate the OECD or ICN.  For example, the OECD has only 36 members, and its recommendations apply to countries rather than to competition agencies, where we would like to focus our efforts.  And while around 140 agencies are members of the ICN, not all agencies are ICN members, though we encourage all to join.

    Further, as currently structured the ICN is not set up for accountability and review of its recommendations.  It has never had that role and it could dramatically change the culture of the ICN if it were to take on such a role, although at a later time the ICN may choose to change its culture.  That time is not now, however, as we don’t want to risk the consensus-based good work the ICN does.

    Let me close with an historical analogy.  In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, which included the fundamental due process commitment that “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations….”  Yet at the very moment the U.S. delegate Eleanor Roosevelt was celebrating that victory, she said she still was not satisfied.  Why?  Because the declaration had no means for implementation.  She said that while the adoption of this declaration was a monumental achievement, we should “now move on with new courage and inspiration to the completion” of a multilateral agreement with “measures for … implementation.”  We all recognize that the time is ripe for us to join in moving forward with inspiration to implementation of a multilateral framework on fundamental due process. 

    We look forward to further discussions on the MFP in Paris in a few weeks.  A significant number of competition authorities have recognized the benefits of the MFP and we look forward to being a partner in working together to bring it to fruition. 

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks to the Department of Justice Rural and Tribal Elder Justice Summit

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Marc for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.  I think you’ll agree with me that it’s one of the best jobs in the world.

    This is a distinguished crowd.  Thank you to:

    • Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
    • Six U.S. Attorneys: Bryan Schroder, Trent Shores, Ron Parsons, Andrew Murray, Pete Deegan, and Marc Krickbaum
    • the head of our Office of Justice Programs and former U.S. Attorney for Northern Iowa, Matt Dummermuth,
    • Katie Sullivan, the head of our Office on Violence Against Women,
    • Darlene Hutchinson, the Director of our Office for Victims of Crime,
    • Assistant Agriculture Secretary Anne Hazlett,
    • Assistant Secretary Lance Robertson of HHS,
    • SEC Regional Director Joel Levin,
    • Postal Inspector Guy Cottrell,
    • Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Nancy Berryhill,
    • Director Deborah Cox Roush of Senior Corps, and
    • A special thanks to all those who made this event possible, especially Toni Bacon, Andy Mao, Kate Peterson, and their teams at the Elder Justice Initiative and the Office for Victims of Crime.

    Thank you all for being here for this summit.  I think this turnout shows how important these issues are to the Department of Justice and to the Trump administration.

    It’s good to be home.  Des Moines is my home.  This is where I played football, where I practiced law, where I prosecuted criminals as a United States Attorney, and it’s where I’m raising my family.

    Iowa shaped my values.

    One of those Iowa values is that we respect our elders.  We recognize the debt that we owe to our parents and grandparents.

    Many seniors in Iowa and across America spent their whole lives working, saving, and sacrificing so that they could enjoy a secure and peaceful retirement.  And under President Trump their 401(k)s are looking good.

    But criminals can try to take it all away with one phone call, one letter, or even one email.

    Each year, an estimated $3 billion are stolen or defrauded from millions of American seniors.  Through so-called grandparent scams, fake prizes or even outright extortion, criminals target our seniors to rob them of their hard-earned savings and their peace of mind.

    And it appears as though this threat is only growing.  The Senate Aging Committee’s Fraud Hotline received twice as many reports in 2016 as it received in 2015.

    These fraud schemes can happen to anyone. And so I hope that no one will feel ashamed to come forward and report if they’ve been a victim.  Some of my family members here in Iowa have received these phone calls.  Some of you have, too.

    At the Department of Justice, we acknowledge that rural areas are especially vulnerable to these crimes.

    In tightly knit communities like the one I grew up in, people are generous and they develop a sense of trust with one another.

    Criminals look at that and they see dollar signs.

    Oftentimes local law enforcement in rural communities have to cover large areas of land with only a small number of officers.  They don’t have the time or the resources to investigate fraud schemes that are often national or even international in scope.

    Fortunately, the Department of Justice has their backs.  As President Donald Trump has said, this administration supports state and local law enforcement 100 percent.

    In this administration, we are well aware that 85 percent of law enforcement officers in this country serve at the state and local levels.  We know that we can’t achieve our goals without them.

    Over the past year we have taken historic new action to support our state and local partners and to keep our seniors safe.

    This year our U.S. Attorneys’ offices have each designated an elder justice coordinator to help prevent crime by educating seniors about scams and other threats.  Over just nine months, our elder justice coordinators participated in nearly 200 training, outreach, and coordination meetings attended by approximately 7,000 people.

    Our elder justice coordinators are also customizing our strategy to protect seniors in their district and coordinating our prosecutions with state and local partners.  That will help us complete more cases and secure more convictions.

    In February, the Department conducted the largest elder fraud enforcement action in American history.  We charged more than 200 defendants with fraud against elderly Americans and we brought civil actions against dozens more. The defendants in these cases allegedly stole from more than one million American seniors of more than half a billion dollars.

    Just a few weeks ago, the Department extended a deferred prosecution agreement with a financial services company in Dallas.  This company allegedly knew about criminals using their services for money laundering, but didn’t do anything about it.  Some of their employees even took part in the schemes—including grandparent scams and fake prize scams targeting the elderly.  In exchange for avoiding prosecution, the company is forfeiting $125 million which the Department will provide to the victims.  The company has also agreed to implement anti-money laundering protections to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.

    There are a lot of other cases that we could talk about—but I’ll just mention two right here in Iowa.

    This year, a total of 33 defendants in Dubuque—11 at the federal level and 22 at the local level—have been convicted for a grandparent scam against a total of 285 American seniors.  The defendants defrauding more than $750,000 and then wiring it to their co-conspirators in the Dominican Republic.  Now they’ve been held accountable.

    At the federal level, these cases were prosecuted by AUSA Tony Morfitt of our Elder Justice Task Force—Tony, great job.

    In August, a jury convicted a man from outside of Des Moines for convincing elderly Iowans to sell off their investments and buy insurance from him.  Instead of buying the insurance as promised, the defendant used most of the funds for personal expenses like remodeling his house and buying two new Harley Davidsons.  I’m pleased to report that that house and those motorcycles have now been forfeited. 

    This case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Adam Kerndt and Mikaela Shotwell.  Great work.

    These are important accomplishments.  We have increased the resources dedicated to these cases and we have increased our effectiveness in prosecuting them.

    But there is more to do.  And so today I am announcing our next steps.

    First of all, we are improving training for our U.S. Attorneys’ offices. 

    Earlier this year the Department’s Elder Justice Initiative published its Elder Abuse Guide for Law Enforcement or EAGLE.  EAGLE contains helpful information for prosecutors, including overviews of state and local law as well as best practices for evidence collection, interviewing older adults, and for documenting elder abuse.  EAGLE is free and available right now to every law enforcement officer in the country.

    Today I am announcing that the next edition of our Journal of Justice Policy and the Law—formerly known as the USA Bulletin—will focus on Elder Justice.  It will also be the longest bulletin we’ve ever published since we started it back in 1953.  These bulletins are public, and so they can be used by state and local prosecutors as well as our U.S. Attorneys’ offices.  That will provide the knowledge and insights of some of the top experts on elder justice to the prosecutors who are on the front lines.

    Second, we are investing in services for seniors who have been victimized by criminals.

    I am announcing today that over the next 11 months, our Office for Victims of Crime will provide nearly $18 million to help seniors who are victims of crime.  These funds can be used for priorities like legal services, telephone hotlines, and housing for seniors who have lost their homes—which is something that happens all too often.  We are using these OVC funds for a wider variety of services for seniors than ever before.

    And finally, we are continuing to enforce the law aggressively and forcefully.

    On October 1st, the Department began our Money Mule Initiative, which is a coordinated effort against the transnational criminal organizations who are defrauding our seniors.

    We are hitting the fraudsters where it hurts—in the wallet.

    Our prosecutors have found that fraudsters avoid using banks to launder the money they take from their victims. Instead, they launder it through so-called money mules—Americans who collect the money and then send it overseas.

    Oftentimes these are co-conspirators—as in the Dubuque case that I mentioned a moment ago.  But sometimes they are simply good people who have been tricked into thinking that they are doing charity work or working for a legitimate business. 

    Working with our Postal Inspectors, FBI agents, and other law enforcement partners, we have identified a number of these money mules across America.  We have even been able to determine which ones have been tricked into this work and which ones are knowing and willful conspirators.

    In the first case, we knock on their door and we explain to them what’s really going on.  We ask them to sign a letter acknowledging that it’s wrong and promising to stop.  That in itself is shutting off large quantities of money for the fraudsters.

    And in the second case—when we determine that they are part of a conspiracy—we are filing civil actions and taking them to court.

    Since October 1, we’ve taken action to stop 400 money mules across 65 districts.  These involve everything from grandparent scams to romance scams, fake lotteries, IRS imposters, and fake tech support schemes.

    The FBI and our Postal Inspectors have interviewed 300 money mules and sent 300 warning letters.  We’ve charged 10 defendants and filed 25 civil actions.  We’ve executed search warrants across America, including here in the Southern District of Iowa.

    These are impressive numbers. 

    Our goal is to reduce crime and protect America’s seniors.  And we have good reasons to believe that our work with our law enforcement partners is reducing crime and having a real impact on the seniors of this country.

    The Postal Inspection Service has estimated that payments by mass mail fraud victims to foreign post office boxes has dropped by 94 percent since 2016—from 150,000 per month to approximately 10,000 per month now.

    There are many causes for that, but that is a remarkable achievement—and I want to thank everyone who has played a role in our efforts.

    We are going to keep up this pace. 

    We are going to continue to provide our prosecutors and our state and local partners with the resources that they need.  And we’re going to keep putting fraudsters in jail.

    I want to thank each of you again for your contribution to this effort.  Each of us has a role to play—and certainly not just those of us in government.  All of us can be on the lookout for fraud schemes and report suspected criminal activity.

    If we do that—and if we remain vigilant—then we can ensure that every senior has the safety and peace of mind that they deserve.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio Delivers Remarks to the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Fall Forum

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good morning.  Thank you, Jim, for that kind introduction, and special thanks to you and your co-chair of this Fall Forum, Debbie Feinstein, for inviting me.  It is an honor to join the distinguished attorneys in attendance here.

    As you just heard, the Office of the Associate Attorney General works closely with the Antitrust Division, and I’d like to begin by saying just a few words about the men and women who work there.  The Division is led by a superlative team.  Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim is an expert in the field and a tireless advocate for the American consumer.  Andrew Finch, his principal deputy, draws on his broad private-sector antitrust experience to supervise all aspects of the Division’s civil and criminal matters.  Barry Nigro, another deputy, is a walking encyclopedia of merger law and practice.  And the many other front office appointees bring to the Division an incredible breadth and depth of knowledge and determination.  Behind them, of course, stand the career lawyers, economists, and staff of the Antitrust Division who, as many of you know firsthand, are smart, resourceful, and tenacious in upholding the law and protecting competition for the benefit of the American economy.  We appreciate their public service and hard work, and we are so fortunate that they have chosen to lend their expertise and talent to our shared mission at the Department of Justice.

    Speaking of which, it is worth reciting the DOJ mission statement for those of you who have never heard it.  It reads as follows: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”  Much of this mission statement is outward facing—we are the cops and we go after the robbers.  But the first and last clauses of the mission statement require something more: we must “enforce the law” and “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice.”  And if we are truly to “enforce the law” and fairly administer justice, we cannot be focused solely on how legal commands apply to those outside the Department.  We must also focus on how the law constrains and cabins the Department—and the federal government as a whole.

    This is a theme, and a tension, as old as our government itself.  James Madison, famously lamenting in Federalist 51 that men are not angels and thus need a government, explained: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  Our government is adept at creating rules to control the governed, but it sometimes fails to control itself.  Over the last two years, some of our priorities at the Department have been aimed at this latter virtue—at controlling ourselves.

    I would like to discuss one of those priorities today—namely, regulatory reform, which is an imperative need for an administrative state that has grown mightily over the last seventy-five years and in ways that Madison and his compatriots could have never imagined when they created the checks and balances they thought would oblige the government to control itself.

    Early in 2017, the President issued several executive orders on regulatory reform.  For example, Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one and to impose zero net regulatory costs.  Executive Order 13777 directs agency heads to appoint Regulatory Reform Officers and Task Forces to implement regulatory reform initiatives and identify burdensome regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification.  These are important measures.  As Neomi Rao, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), recently explained in a Washington Post editorial, lifting unduly burdensome regulations promotes economic growth and “the spirit of liberty that animates our productive and innovative society.”

    Accordingly, at the Department of Justice, we take this regulatory reform mandate very seriously.  While the Department does not generate the same volume of regulations as, say, the Environmental Protection Agency, we do have components that issue regulations, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, which regulates doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals under the Controlled Substances Act; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which regulates the firearms and explosives industries; and the Civil Rights Division, which regulates state and local governments, public accommodations, and commercial facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Each of these components is working to ensure that their regulatory agendas comply with the executive orders. 

    But, in my view, the Department’s most critical contribution to regulatory reform has not come by way of any particular substantive regulatory change, but rather through our focus on improving the regulatory process by promoting transparency, accountability, and public participation.  Such procedural reforms can often outlive more newsworthy substantive changes to individual rules, and they can lead to better and less burdensome substantive decisionmaking.

    One of the first areas of procedural reform we focused upon is reigning in the use of guidance documents.  To understand why this is so important, let me first set the stage by returning to Federalist 51.  There, Madison wrote that “[i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”  Accordingly, as Madison explained in Federalist 48, “it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.”  Acting on this belief, the Founders wrote a Constitution in which the first article (establishing Congress) is much more finely wrought than, and is more than double the length of, the second article (establishing the executive).  The Founders viewed the legislative branch—with the power to make policy and thus restrict liberty—as the foremost danger among equals, and thus much more carefully cabined that branch through structural protections (or “precautions” as Madison called them in both Federalist 48 and 51).

    But we twenty-first century Americans, for better or worse, live in the age of the administrative state, where most substantive rules that are binding on the People are created by Executive Branch agencies exercising rulemaking powers delegated by Congress.  That means that the threat from the “enterprising ambition” that Madison feared now comes more often from the administrators than from the legislators.  Accordingly, we also need procedural protections—“precautions,” as Madison called them—to cabin those ambitions. 

    We have some such protections in the form of the Administrative Procedure Act.  When Congress delegates to an executive agency the authority to regulate—that is, to create binding rights and obligations for the public—the APA normally requires that such authority be exercised through notice-and-comment rulemaking.  These rulemaking processes require a lot of input and serious deliberation; there are many steps, and they sometimes proceed slowly or not at all.  They are designed this way, just like the Constitution is designed to require many steps for the enactment of statutes.  Process protects liberty. 

    But regulators like to regulate, and everyone likes a shortcut.  So it has come to pass that, with increasing frequency, administrative agencies, including the Department of Justice, issue so-called guidance documents that effectively bind the public.  The guidance documents do not go through the notice-and-comment process required by the APA; indeed, they do not go through any transparent or regularized process at all.  They just spring forth fully formed, and the public is expected to comply.  Some commentators have begun to call such guidance, perhaps fairly, “regulatory dark matter.”  The threat such a regime poses to our constitutional structure, and the liberty it protects, is manifest.

    Accordingly, with this in mind, in November 2017, Attorney General Sessions signed a memorandum prohibiting the Department of Justice from issuing guidance documents that “impose new requirements on entities outside the Executive Branch.”  The memorandum lays out five principles that must govern any future guidance, including that the document should disclaim any force or effect of law and “should not be used for the purpose of coercing persons or entities” to take or refrain from taking any actions beyond what is already required under the law.

    A few months later, in January 2018, we took the next step to reign in inappropriate use of subregulatory guidance.  The Associate Attorney General issued a new policy that prohibits the use of agency guidance documents in affirmative civil litigation in a manner that would convert such guidance into binding rules of conduct.  This ensures that DOJ will not do with another agency’s guidance what it cannot do with its own under the Sessions Memo.  As the memorandum explains: “That a party fails to comply with agency guidance expanding upon statutory or regulatory requirements does not mean that the party violated those underlying legal requirements; agency guidance documents cannot create any additional legal obligations.”

    Now, I realize that I am at an antitrust, and not an administrative law, conference.  So what does all of this mean for the Antitrust Division?  Well, the Division, often in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, has issued numerous guidance documents, including, for example, intellectual property guidelines and, of course, the horizontal merger guidelines.  Under our view, none of these guidelines create binding rights or rules that have the force of law.  The guidelines can be useful in ensuring transparency by explaining how the Antitrust Division uses its prosecutorial discretion.  But the Antitrust Division will not treat a violation of the guidelines as presumptively or conclusively establishing a violation of the underlying legal requirements.  The Division must bring cases in court if it seeks to assert that a violation of the law has occurred, and it must prove such a violation by reference to statutory law and judicial precedent.

    With that, let me turn from the dark matter of guidance documents to another particle in the regulatory cosmos, but one that is even less visible: the consent decree.

    A consent decree is a binding court judgment, and it can serve an important function in a range of cases and enforcement areas.  But some consent decree are voluminous in their requirements and have virtually perpetual life.  They are, in effect, a set of regulations for a single party, overseen by the Department of Justice, a federal judge, and, quite often, a private-party monitor appointed by the court.  In practice, consent decrees can result in one or all of these entities directing the day-to-day operations of a business or local government agency for years on end.  As should be obvious from the description, such a regime can be as intrusive as—if not more intrusive than—a regulation.

    Thirty years ago, Assistant Attorney General Rick Rule, whom many of you know, gave a speech about telecommunications policy to the Brookings Institution.  He noted that the Reagan Administration’s best known accomplishment in antitrust law was the breakup of AT&T.   The ongoing monitoring required under the AT&T consent decree, however, created, in his words, a “mixed legacy” because of the institutional harms flowing from requiring the Antitrust Division and a federal court to be, in effect, telecommunications regulators.  Federal courts and the Antitrust Division, Rule said, “inherently lack many of the resources crucial to successful regulation.”  He explained that effective regulation requires technical expertise, regulatory experience, and administrative processes that federal courts and federal prosecutors simply lack.

    That is one problem, but it is not the only problem.  Some consent decrees stray not only beyond the practical resources and expertise of the enforcers, but also beyond the legal authority of what the government could do by other means.  Imposing conditions that could not be obtained through litigation to judgment is similar to creating regulations beyond the bounds of law.  And just because a court imposes such a decree does not make it appropriate or wise.  Courts, like executive branch agencies, can exceed their powers and distort constitutional norms.  As with our commitment to abstaining from regulation through guidance, the Department of Justice must take care to avoid going beyond our lawful authority through the entry of consent decrees.

    Accordingly, while consent decrees can be necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances, we are requiring Department litigators in all components to proceed with due caution and care before entering into new cosent decrees.  Effective consent decree management is a key part of our regulatory reform and good government efforts. 

    And, as with our other efforts, the Antitrust Division has been doing its part.  For example, last year, at this every forum, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim gave a speech on antitrust and deregulation.  He made the case that a behavioral consent decree substitutes regulation for competition.  He also announced that the Antitrust Division would disfavor behavioral consent decrees, calling them “the wolf of regulation dressed in . . . sheep’s clothing.”   Indeed.  The notion that the Department of Justice can fine-tune the operations of large businesses, for years on end, to prevent competitive harm is simply untenable from a first principles standpoint and unwarranted from a pro-competitive and pro-liberty standpoint. 

    Avoiding behavioral consent decrees is not the only step that the Antitrust Division is taking in this area.  Earlier this year, the Division launched its Judgment Termination Initiative, through which the Division is identifying and terminating legacy consent decrees that no longer protect competition.  To understand why this is important, it is helpful to turn again to something Administrator Rao explained earlier this year.  She described the problem of “cumulative regulations.”   When the government is always adding regulations but never repealing old ones, regulatory accretion occurs—the regulatory text expands and expands, with some regulations serving no purpose and others affirmatively harming economic growth and American competitiveness.

    Consent decrees can suffer from the same infirmity.  Indeed, from the first cases brought under the Sherman Act until 1979, antitrust consent decrees were perpetual.  In that year, the Division changed its policy such that future settlements would have “sunset” provisions that would automatically terminate a decree on a date certain, usually after ten years.  But while the Division recognized forty years ago that perpetual decrees were not in the public interest, there has been no effort to address the perpetual decrees that were entered prior to that date. 

    Until now.  Assistant Attorney General Delrahim and his team deserve great credit for tackling this issue.  And there is a lot of work to do.  There are nearly 1,300 legacy judgments still on the books, including some decrees that are more than one hundred years old.  There is, for example, a decree from 1914 concerning rubber hoof pads for horseshoes.  Another one from 1921 relates to music rolls for player pianos.  And yet another, my personal favorite, controls the market for horse-buggy whips.  This state of affairs, my friends, is not good government.  This is not prudent and careful regulatory action.  This is ancient, cosmic junk unnecessarily floating around the regulatory atmosphere.

    These outdated decrees pose a particular problem given the common-law nature of the antitrust laws, the construction of which evolve through judicial decisionmaking closely informed by economic analysis.  Under the Sherman Act, only unreasonable—which is to say anticompetitive—restraints of trade are condemned.  Courts look to economic analysis to understand what is unreasonable.  And as economic analysis has matured and been refined over decades, courts have recognized that certain practices, once condemned, are not only not harmful to competition, but can even be procompetitive.

    The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in the Leegin case provides one example of such a change.   In that case, the Court overturned a nearly century-old per se prohibition on resale price maintenance.   It recognized that resale price maintenance can help stimulate interbrand competition.  The antitrust laws are designed to protect just such competition because it is output enhancing.  By contrast, intrabrand competition, such as when independent retailers engage in a price war to undersell a product from the same manufacturer, is not output enhancing.

    Yet a perpetual consent decree related to resale price maintenance entered any year between 1911 and 1979 would have frozen the old prohibition in place.  Such an ongoing, indefinite prohibition against lawful behavior does not serve to protect competition or to advance the rule of law.  Indeed, it affirmatively undermines both.

    Perpetual consent decrees rarely continue to protect competition, and those that are more than ten years old should be terminated absent compelling circumstances.  To expedite the termination of outdated consent decrees, the Antitrust Division has engaged in a comprehensive effort to review all of its legacy judgments.  Each judgment was assigned to a Division attorney, who examined court papers, internal case files, and publicly available information to determine whether the judgment continued to serve competition.  Judgments for which termination is recommended are then posted, by judicial district, to the Division’s website for a thirty-day public comment period.

    The judgments in sixty of seventy-nine judicial districts have been posted to the Division’s website for public comment.  Once the thirty-day public comment period closes for a particular judicial district, the Division will review any comments received and, if appropriate, prepare a motion to terminate the judgments.

    Already, in July, the Division moved to terminate nineteen legacy judgments in the District Court here in the District of Columbia.  And the court granted that motion on August 15.  The Division is actively working to prepare other motions in other districts.

    The Division will move to terminate such decrees where the essential terms of the judgment have been satisfied, where most defendants no longer exist, where the judgment largely prohibits that which the antitrust laws already prohibit, or where market conditions likely have changed.  Of course, as with the Leegin example, the Division will also seek to terminate decrees for which the relevant antitrust jurisprudence has changed and the conduct prohibited might actually be procompetitive.

    I know that the Judgment Termination Initiative is a top priority for AAG Delrahim and the Division.  I applaud the hard work that has gone into this effort already and the commitment of the Division to see it through.

    With that, let me close by saying thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here.  We are hard at work at the Department of Justice, including at the Antitrust Division, in our efforts to enforce the law and fairly administer justice.  As I have stated, that includes applying the limits of the law to ourselves, or, as Madison put it, to controlling ourselves.  We will continue to advance this cause, and we hope it makes a difference in helping the American people and economy flourish.  Thank you very much.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks at the Department of Justice’s Veterans Appreciation Day Ceremony

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Lee for that kind introduction and thank you for your 36 years of service to the Department of Justice and your 12 years of stewardship of the Department’s finances.

    I also want to thank the Joint Armed Forces Color Guard for the Presentation of the Colors and Girale Wilson-Takahashi from our COPS office for that beautiful rendition of the National Anthem.

    Thank you all for being here for the Department’s eighth Veterans’ Appreciation Day.

    Above all, thank you to the 150 veterans who have joined us today.

    Thank you for your service in our Armed Forces—and thank you for your service in this Department.

    At this Department of Justice, we recognize that public safety is government’s first and most important priority.

    The men and women of our Armed Forces—Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard—risk their lives for that mission every day, and each of us owes them a debt of gratitude.

    This Department also works for public safety by enforcing our laws—but we know that our work depends upon the bravery and sacrifice of our troops.

    We are proud of each one of the 27,000 veterans who serve in this Department.

    Your skills, your patriotism, and above all your selfless character make you the kind of employees that any employer would want.  But you’ve chosen to continue to serve your country—you’ve chosen to work in the Department of Justice.  I commend you for that.

    We are well aware that heroes walk these hallways.

    Outside of my office is a memorial with the names of colleagues who during World War II made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our grateful country.

    I also know firsthand of the heroes we have in department, because I am now literally surrounded by them each and every day.  Most of the FBI agents in my security detail are veterans.

    That includes Special Agent Damon Flores, who is a former Navy rescue swimmer in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf.  After his service in the Navy, he went to college on the GI Bill and got an accounting and finance degree.  He quickly realized that accounting was not as exciting as being a rescue swimmer.  He wanted a little more adventure, and so he signed up with the FBI.  He marked his 14th anniversary with the Bureau just yesterday.  Damon, congratulations.

    We’re also proud to be the home of Maura Quinn of DEA.

    Maura graduated from the Naval Academy, and then in flight school she chose to fly helicopters so she could pilot a combat aircraft.  After graduation she deployed twice—first with a carrier battle group to the Indian Ocean and then in support of Operation Desert Shield. 

    She served as an instructor pilot for two years and went to law school at night.  As if she weren’t busy enough, she gave birth to two children before graduation.

    After law school, she joined the United States Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California and then the FBI’s Office of General Counsel.  She then served for eight years in the Chief Counsel’s office at DEA.  Over that time she became an expert in technology law—and today she serves as DEA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Information Systems.  Maura, thank you for your service.

    I could go on and on.  There are roughly 26,998 more examples that I could talk about.

    But this is the caliber of people that we are so grateful to have in this Department.

    Through our Veterans Employment Office in the Justice Management Division, we have made hiring veterans a priority and helped them make the transition into careers with the Department.

    We want more exemplary employees like Damon Flores and Maura Quinn.

    We will continue to invest in our heroes—because you’re a good investment.  You are, in the words of General John Kelly, “the very best this country produces.”

    Now I have the honor of introducing someone who knows that as well as anyone.

    Our keynote speaker is the Director of Military Force Management Policy for the Air Force, Major General Robert LaBrutta.  You might think of him as the Air Force’s head of human resources.

    Major General LaBrutta has served in the Air Force for the last 37 years.

    Today he is responsible for setting force management policy that affects more than half a million Air Force personnel—issues like assignments, evaluation, readiness, and transitioning back to civilian life.

    Before this assignment he served as Commander of the Second Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi.

    He has earned a number of distinguished awards including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement Medal, and many others.

    Please join me in welcoming Major General Robert LaBrutta.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Remarks at the American Bar Association Antitrust Section Fall Forum

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    “November Rain”: Antitrust Enforcement on Behalf of American Consumers and Taxpayers

    Good morning, and thank you for the kind introduction.  I’d like to thank the American Bar Association for your invitation to this year’s Fall Forum and Deb Garza for her leadership of the Section this year. 

    I find it hard to believe it’s been only a little more than a year since I was confirmed as AAG and spoke at last year’s Fall Forum.  Over the past year, the Antitrust Division has been hard at work on behalf of American consumers. We made a number of significant enforcement actions this week, but before I turn to those, I’d like to update you on a few recent changes in the Front Office. 

    First, Michael Murray recently joined us from the Deputy Attorney General’s office, where he served as Associate Deputy Attorney General.  Mike now will be a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Front Office, where he will be overseeing our Appellate Section and our 4A damage actions on behalf of the American taxpayer.  Mike has significant appellate experience, including as a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

    In addition, our new acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics is Jeff Wilder.  Jeff received his Ph.D. from MIT and has distinguished himself as an outstanding economist serving as one of the leaders in the Division’s Economic Analysis Group, and we’re happy to have him join us in the Front Office.

    Some of you may remember that at last year’s Fall Forum, I spoke about antitrust and deregulation.  In those remarks, I focused on remedies, including our preference for structural remedies and our emphasis on making consent decrees more enforceable.  I also discussed our commitment to the view that antitrust enforcement is law enforcement, not industrial regulation, and that the Antitrust Division should strive to accomplish its law enforcement mission in the most efficient and effective way possible.  The Division has stood by those principles. 

    More recently, in a speech at Georgetown, I announced several improvements to the merger review process.  We are making good on those changes as well.  Today, we posted a model timing agreement and a model voluntary request letter on our website.  Those documents increase transparency and predictability and will help merging businesses and their counsel know what to expect as part of the merger review process.  We’ve also begun tracking the duration of merger reviews more carefully, so that we can monitor our performance and factors affecting it.  You will recall our goal is to resolve investigations within six months of filing, provided that the parties cooperate and comply with our document and data requests during the entire process.

    I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks today on four important settlements in the last week that reflect the Antitrust Division’s commitment to vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement. 

    As some of you may have seen, the Division announced just yesterday a set of global settlements with three South Korean companies.  Those unprecedented settlements resolve criminal charges and civil claims arising from a bid-rigging conspiracy that targeted fuel supply contracts to U.S. military bases in South Korea.  They are the result of tremendous hard work in parallel criminal and civil investigations by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section, the Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section, and the Fraud Section of the Civil Division.  We were assisted ably by our partners at the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

    The United States currently maintains numerous military bases in South Korea, housing American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors in the region.  These military bases need fuel for various purposes, and two Department of Defense agencies, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), contract with South Korean companies to supply fuel to the numerous U.S. military bases throughout South Korea. 

    Our investigation, which is ongoing, revealed that SK Energy, GS Caltex, Hanjin Transportation, along with other co-conspirators, rigged bids and fixed prices for fuel supply contracts issued by the U.S. military in South Korea for over a decade.  They cheated the Military and American taxpayers out of precious limited resources.  As a result of the conspiracy, the Department of Defense paid substantially more for fuel supply services.  Although the immediate victim here was the U.S. military, the American taxpayer, you and me, ultimately footed the bill. 

    The three companies agreed yesterday to plead guilty to criminal charges under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and they will pay at least $82 million in criminal fines for their involvement in the conspiracy.  Importantly, the three defendants have also agreed to cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation of the conduct. 

    Robert Jackson, who is one of my legal heroes, recognized that bid rigging is particularly harmful to government purchasers.  When he served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Jackson broadly denounced arrangements that “compel purchasers to pay a price based on calculation, not competition,” and specifically emphasized that “[w]hatever the effect of this on private buyers, it completely destroys the mechanism set up by federal, state, and municipal governments to keep favoritism and corruption out of public buying.”

    The harm Jackson recognized still exists today, and these settlements serve as an important reminder that the Justice Department and its law enforcement partners will investigate aggressively and prosecute without hesitation companies who cheat the United States government and the American taxpayer. 

    We did not stop there.  We are committed to using all authorities Congress has granted to us to remedy antitrust injuries to the American taxpayer.  Those tools include the authority conferred in Section 4A of the Clayton Act.  Section 4A is an important but underused enforcement tool that allows the government to recover treble damages for antitrust violations when the government itself is the victim. 

    To that end, the Division established a parallel civil enforcement team, led by Kathy O’Neill and a group of capable litigators from the Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section to pursue parallel civil actions for damages.  We negotiated separate civil resolutions with each of the three defendants on behalf of American taxpayers.  We also worked alongside our partners in the Civil Division’s Fraud Section, who pursued charges against the defendants under the False Claims Act for making false statements to the government in connection with their conspiracy. 

    To resolve both the civil antitrust and the False Claims Act violations, these three defendants have agreed to pay an additional $154 million in total.  They also have agreed to cooperate fully with the Division’s ongoing civil investigation and to implement effective antitrust compliance programs.

    These historic cases mark the first significant settlements under Section 4A in many years.  In fact, as far as we can tell based on our records, they are the largest settlements the government has ever recovered since the enactment of Section 4A.    

    Let me take a step back to review the history of Section 4A. 

    When Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 and the Clayton Act in 1914, neither statute contained a provision specifically allowing the government to recover damages it suffered as a result of an antitrust violation.  In 1939, the United States, led by Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold, brought its first-ever antitrust suit for damages on its own behalf.   The government claimed authority to do so under Section 7 of the Sherman Act, which was the predecessor of Section 4 of the Clayton Act.  As most of you know, Section 4 permits “any person” injured by an antitrust violation to recover the damages they suffered. 

    In that pioneering case, United States v. Cooper, the government alleged that eighteen defendants had “collusively fixed” bids that were “identical to the penny on eighty-two different sizes of tires” sold to the United States.  The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action on the question of whether the government is a “person” entitled to bring an action for damages under the statute.  The Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the United States is not a “person” entitled to sue. 

    In 1955, Congress amended the Clayton Act in response to the Court’s ruling in Cooper by adding Section 4A.  As originally enacted, Section 4A allowed the government to recover only single damages, so that the government could recover damages where it was the victim of an antitrust violation. 

    At first, the Division used Section 4A aggressively, filing numerous cases for damages throughout the 1960s and 1970s.  In the 1980s, however, the government brought only four cases under Section 4A—a remarkable decline from the prior two decades.  Some attributed this drop, in part, to the Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick decision in 1978, because many of the cases brought in the ‘60s and ‘70s involved claims by the United States as an indirect purchaser.  The government, however, increasingly purchases goods and services directly.

    The next milestone came in 1990, when Congress amended the Clayton Act again to allow the government to seek treble damages in Section 4A cases. 

    Since 1990, a span of nearly thirty years, only three Section 4A cases have been filed.  In 1991, the Division recovered $250,000 from two companies for rigging bids to purchase surplus gunpowder.  In 1994, the Division filed suit against two defense contractors for entering into a “teaming” arrangement that eliminated competition in supplying the Department of Defense with cluster bombs.  In that case, the Division recovered $4 million on behalf of American taxpayers and obtained an $8 million discount on the bid price.  In 2012, the Division challenged collusion between two companies bidding on four natural gas leases at auctions run by the Bureau of Land Management.  The Division recovered $275,000 from each company. 

    The American Taxpayer deserves to see a revitalization of the government’s Section 4A authority.  This week’s settlements are only the first in that direction.  Going forward, the Division will exercise 4A authority to seek compensation for taxpayers when the government has been the victim of an antitrust violation.  We hope that these efforts will also deter future violations. 

    In light of our policy of seeking damages under Section 4A where available, I would like to address how parallel criminal and civil enforcement will proceed going forward. 

    First, the Division’s new focus on Section 4A enforcement will not require any changes to the Division’s leniency policy.  The Division offers strong incentives to come forward to report criminal antitrust violations in exchange for leniency, and those incentives do not change when the government is harmed by the violation. 

    The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, better known as ACPERA, created another valuable incentive for leniency applications.  Under ACPERA’s detrebling provision, those who successfully qualify for leniency will be subject only to single damages in follow-on civil suits, rather than treble damages.  In addition, those who successfully qualify for leniency are not subject to joint and several liability.

    This detrebling incentive will apply to any Section 4A claims brought by the government.  We will also follow the underlying requirements for ACPERA in Section 4A cases: companies will need to cooperate with the civil team, as they would with any private plaintiff, in order to reap the detrebling benefits.

    The bottom line is that the Division’s enforcement of Section 4A will increase the incentive for co-conspirators in cartel cases to come forward. 

    Separately, I should note that global resolutions like the ones announced yesterday should serve the interests of the parties as well.  Cooperating companies subject to penalties under multiple statutes can gain certainty and finality.  Employees, customers, and investors can resolve the problem and move on. This is consistent with the Department’s broader policies on coordination of corporate penalties.

    Next, as we pursue Section 4A damages going forward, global resolutions of criminal and civil antitrust liability will help maintain a consistent policy on how to calculate civil damages.  Yesterday’s settlements underscore this point.  They provide that SK Energy, GS Caltex, and Hanjin each will pay an amount calculated to exceed the overcharge paid by the government.  At the same time, the amount reflects both the value of the cooperation commitments each defendant made as a condition of settlement and the cost savings the Division realized by avoiding extended litigation.  

    As a general matter, if the government is required to litigate claims it brings under Section 4A, the government will seek treble damages.  In addition, we anticipate that earlier cooperators will benefit by paying a lower multiple of damages, because the value of their cooperation is higher earlier in our investigation. 

    I will turn now to another significant settlement the Division filed this week, one which resolves a complaint against six broadcast television companies alleging that they engaged in widespread, unlawful sharing of non-public, competitively sensitive information.  Along with the complaint, the Division filed proposed final judgments requiring the companies to cease such conduct and to undergo rigorous compliance and reporting measures for the next seven years.

    We uncovered this conduct during our investigation into Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s proposed acquisition of Tribune Media Company, which has since been abandoned. 

    As we allege in the complaint, the defendants agreed in local broadcasting markets throughout the United States to exchange revenue pacing information and other competitively sensitive information.  “Pacing” compares a broadcast station’s revenues booked for a certain time period to the revenues booked in the same point in the previous year.  Pacing indicates how each station is performing versus the rest of the market and provides insight into each station’s remaining spot advertising for the period. 

    We discovered that the defendants had been exchanging pacing information either directly between stations or corporate headquarters, or indirectly through national representatives that help local stations sell advertisements to national advertisers.  By exchanging this information, the broadcasters were better able to anticipate whether their competitors were likely to raise, maintain, or lower spot advertising prices, which in turn helped inform the stations’ own pricing strategies and negotiations with advertisers.  As a result, the information exchanges harmed the competitive price-setting process.

    We have not heard any legitimate pro-competitive justification for this conduct.  We are therefore pleased that these companies recognized that a protracted investigation and litigation would serve no purpose, and we welcome their cooperation as our investigation continues.  We also want to remind businesses, as well as the antitrust practitioners that advise them, that agreements between competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information can violate the antitrust laws and lead to a civil enforcement action even if the conduct does not amount to the type of hard core cartel conduct that the Antitrust Division prosecutes criminally.

    Finally, this morning we announced the third significant enforcement resolution this week—a settlement with Atrium Health, formerly known as Carolinas Healthcare System.  We were joined in the settlement by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, and we thank them for their partnership in this action.  The settlement resolves over two years of civil antitrust litigation challenging the hospital system’s use of anticompetitive steering restrictions in its contracts with major health insurers.  These steering restrictions prevented health insurers from promoting innovative health plans and more cost-effective healthcare providers.  

    Atrium is the dominant hospital system in the Charlotte, North Carolina metropolitan area.  It used its market power to limit major health insurers’ ability to introduce plans designed to encourage consumers to choose cost-effective healthcare providers.  Specifically, Atrium would agree to participate in a broad network plan only if the insurer would commit not to introduce other plans that would steer patients away from Atrium.  The steering restrictions also deliberately constrained insurers from providing consumers with transparency into the comparative cost and quality of their healthcare alternatives.

    Because the steering restrictions were in place, insurers could not introduce more innovative health insurance plans that create financial incentives for patients to use lower-cost healthcare services.  Needless to say, competition for patients encourages healthcare providers to reduce costs, lower prices, and increase quality.  These steering restrictions inhibited competition among healthcare providers to provide higher quality, lower-cost services.  

    The resolution prevents Atrium from enforcing the steering restrictions in its contracts with major health insurers.  If approved by the Court, it will restore competition between healthcare providers in Charlotte, North Carolina.

    I would like to make a broader point about the Division’s settlements this week.  The consent decrees in all three cases, like all other decrees the Division has entered into the past 13 months, include specific new provisions designed to improve their enforceability. 

    These provisions (i) address the burden of proof in a civil contempt action by providing that the preponderance standard will apply; (ii) make defendants responsible for reimbursing the government for all costs it incurs in connection with enforcing the decree; (iii) allow the United States to seek a one-time extension of the term of the decree in the event of a violation, or to terminate the decree early if continuation is no longer necessary or in the public interest.  Another provision addresses interpretation of the decree by stating that courts can enforce any provisions that are stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not they are clear and unambiguous on their face.

    The Division serves as a guardian of American consumers, and we act in the public’s trust.  When the Division enters into a consent decree to resolve charges of anticompetitive conduct, we will hold parties’ feet to the fire and enforce the decrees. 

    Finally, last Friday, three defendants pled guilty to conspiring to rig bids and allocate the market in auctions of foreclosed properties in Palm Beach County, Florida.  This case is unlike the Division’s prior foreclosure auction prosecutions because the auction occurred online rather than in-person, and the collusion occurred primarily by text message rather than in-person.  It is a good illustration of the fact that while defendants may use new platforms and technologies to commit antitrust crimes, the Division too is evolving and stands ready to prosecute these crimes in the digital age.

    The conspiracy took place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, which affected the housing market nationwide and the Florida real estate market in particular.  Defendants and their affiliated business entities were the largest buyers of foreclosed properties in Palm Beach County.  Together, the commerce affected by the defendants’ collusion was $25 million. 

    The Division began an investigation into possible collusion in online foreclosure auctions in Palm Beach County, Florida after receiving an anonymous citizen complaint that included a link to a YouTube video detailing the collusion. 

    Co-conspirators texted each other to coordinate their bidding and facilitate the conspiracy to obtain foreclosed homes at suppressed prices.  Most commonly, bidders would agree to stop bidding or to refrain from bidding at their co-conspirators’ request.  In some instances, they lowered bids for each other’s benefit. 

    After learning of the investigation, one of the defendants used and encouraged other co-conspirators to use a text messaging application to continue colluding.  He believed that law enforcement would be unable to read or trace any messages sent through the application.

    The three defendants were indicted by a grand jury in November 2017.  Since then, all three have pleaded guilty.

    I will conclude by taking this opportunity to highlight the outstanding attorneys and economists at the Antitrust Division.  They are the core of executing the Division’s mission and work tirelessly in their commitment to protect competition and consumers.    

    It has been a busy year at the Antitrust Division.  We have been working hard on behalf of America’s consumers and taxpayers, and look forward to continuing our efforts on their behalf in the year to come. 

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the “SamSam” Ransomware Press Conference

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good morning. I am joined by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito, and FBI Executive Assistant Director Amy Hess.

    Also on stage are the two prosecutors handling this matter: Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Herring, and Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section Senior Counsel William Hall Jr.

    A federal grand jury in New Jersey indicted two Iranian citizens for a three-year scheme that involved hacking into computers of hospitals, municipalities, public institutions, and businesses. It involved a high-tech, sophisticated extortion plot.

    The defendants allegedly hijacked victims’ computer systems and shut them down until the victims paid a “ransom.”

    The conspirators collected more than $6 million in extortion payments and caused more than $30 million in losses.

    Many of the victims were public agencies with missions that involve saving lives and performing other critical functions for the American people. 

    The indictment was returned on November 26, and unsealed today in Newark, New Jersey. It alleges that Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammad Mehdi Shah Mansouri used sophisticated software to execute their computer hacking and extortion scheme.

    Acting from inside Iran, the men developed and deployed a form of ransomware that they named “SamSam.”  Ransomware is a destructive computer code that encrypts victims’ computers and then holds the computers “hostage” until a “ransom” fee is paid.

    Starting in January 2016, the defendants gained access to victims’ computers by exploiting cyber security weaknesses.  After gaining access to the computers, they remotely installed ransomware.  The ransomware encrypted computer data, crippling the ability of the victims to operate their businesses and provide critical services to the public. 

    The victims included two major municipalities – the City of Atlanta, Georgia and the City of Newark, New Jersey.  The defendants also sought to interrupt critical transportation infrastructure by infiltrating the Port of San Diego, California, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

    In addition, the defendants infected the computers of six health-care related entities from across the country, impairing the ability of these businesses to provide health care to sick and injured people. 

    The defendants chose to focus their scheme on public entities, hospitals, and municipalities.  They knew that shutting down those computer systems could cause significant harm to innocent victims.

    The indictment alleges that the defendants demanded payment from their victims in the form of the virtual currency known as Bitcoin.  Bitcoin contributes to the increasing sophistication of criminal schemes.  It is a common currency for criminal schemes, including websites that distribute child pornography and deadly opioid drugs, and ransomware and other tools of extortion.

    The defendants allegedly communicated with victims using Tor, an encrypted computer network designed to facilitate anonymous communication over the Internet. 

    We support the use of encryption to safeguard private information and strengthen cybersecurity.  But this case highlights another example of the challenges posed to law enforcement by encryption designed to resist law enforcement. 

    Sophisticated encryption technologies like the Tor network are used by cybercriminals to commit serious offenses.  These sophisticated technologies pose a real threat to the government’s ability to keep people safe and ensure that criminals and terrorists are caught and brought to justice.

    Every sector of our economy is a target of malicious cyber activity.  But the events described in this Indictment highlight the urgent need for municipalities, public utilities, health care institutions, universities and other public organizations to enhance their cyber security. 

    Publicly revealing this nefarious hacking scheme makes it harder for the perpetrators, and others like them, to do business in the future.  As a result of the Indictment, the defendants are now fugitives from justice.  They face arrest and extradition to the United States in many nations that honor the rule of law. 

    We call on all civilized nations to prevent their citizens from using the internet to perpetrate fraud schemes in foreign countries.

    By making clear that criminal actions have consequences, we deter schemes to victimize the United States government, businesses, and citizens, and we help to protect foreign allies.

    This case demonstrates the Department of Justice’s commitment to identifying and prosecuting cybercriminals, regardless of where they base their operations. 

    We are grateful for outstanding work and collaboration between American and international law enforcement partners in this investigation.  In particular, I want to thank two United Kingdom agencies – the National Crime Agency, and the West Yorkshire Police – and two Canadian agencies, the Calgary Police Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 

    Our National Security Division and our Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided critical support.

    Next, I want to invite Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to provide some remarks. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Delrahim Delivers Remarks at the Antitrust Division’s Seventh Annual Diversity Celebration

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you, Matthew, for that kind introduction.

    And good afternoon everyone.  It is great to be joined by so many colleagues from across the Antitrust Division and beyond. 

    I would also like to acknowledge our special guest from the FBI, Special Agent Voviette Morgan.  I’m honored to be introducing Ms. Morgan and grateful she accepted my invitation to this year’s Annual Diversity Celebration. 

    This is my fourth Annual Diversity Celebration as Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division.  In my tenure, we have had some incredibly inspiring speakers: former Treasurer of the United States Anna Cabral, former FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, and former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu. This annual event complements the regular opportunities we have throughout the year to discuss diversity and inclusion with distinguished guests.  Some of those outstanding events included Roberta Cordano, the President of Gallaudet University; Leslie Overton, a former DAAG at the Division; and Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison of Johns Hopkins University. 

    Before I hand things over to Special Agent Morgan, I’d like to pick up where Matthew left off and touch briefly on the Antitrust Division’s enduring commitment to diversity and inclusion.  When I rejoined the Division in 2017 as AAG, I pledged to build upon the Division’s robust support for diversity and inclusion to ensure a workplace tolerant and representative of a full diversity of ideas and backgrounds.  The Diversity Committee has helped ensure we honor that pledge, and I thank them for constantly bringing new ideas for furthering the Antitrust Division’s record as a place that welcomes diversity in all its forms. 

    This has been an extraordinarily challenging year for all of us.  We’ve been trying to do our part to advance the Division’s mission while trying to stop the spread of coronavirus in our communities, homeschooling our kids, providing eldercare, and supporting our families and neighbors in countless other ways.  All of this against a backdrop of recent events in our country that strike at our collective conscience. 

    I commend the Diversity Committee for juggling all of these challenges and yet remaining incredibly productive.  The Division remains a leader in advancing diversity within the Department because of this Committee’s innovation and sustained diligence.

    Matthew spoke about some of the recent Diversity Committee initiatives.  I’ll note that several of these key recommendations are the work of the newest subcommittee, the Women’s subcommittee.  Launched in 2019, this subcommittee hit the ground running and has made an indelible impact on the Division with initiatives such as the Stork program, the Parental Leave Q&A, and the Wellness/Lactation Rooms, all initiatives I am proud to have worked with you on these past several years.   

    Not to put too much pressure on the 2021 members of the Diversity Committee, but it is my hope that you will be just as successful as the 2020 and 2019 members have been.  Indeed, you’ll have an early opportunity to leave your mark on the Division as well with the creation of a new Subcommittee within the Diversity Committee – the Veterans Subcommittee.

    This subcommittee will launch next year with a focus on increasing awareness of reservists’ and veterans’ valuable contributions to the Division’s mission, and addressing some of the issues unique to their circumstances, with the overarching goal of improving recruiting and retention of veterans and reservists. 

    As you all know, in addition to recapping the Committee’s recent accomplishments, and previewing plans for the coming year, the Annual Celebration is also an opportunity to hear from a special guest speaker.

    Today’s speaker is in the mold of the impressive leaders who have celebrated with us in past years: I could not be happier to introduce FBI Special Agent in Charge, Voviette Morgan.  

    Special Agent Morgan is a trailblazing public servant that has inspired others to careers in public service and law enforcement.  A Los Angeles native, she joined the Bureau more than two decades ago focusing on white-collar crime.  She’s risen through the ranks and held several leadership positions in the Office of Public and Congressional Affairs and the Counterterrorism Division.  She has also served as the chief of the Internal Investigations Section in the Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

    In August 2017, FBI Director Christopher Wray named Special Agent Morgan as the Special Agent in Charge of the Criminal Division for the Los Angeles Field Office, which is responsible for investigating all federal crimes in the Los Angeles area.[1]  

    Her office investigates everything from public corruption including police, law enforcement, legislative and judicial corruption, to organized crime and drug offenses, to a laundry list of white-collar crimes including antirust, financial institution and healthcare fraud.  Her office also investigates civil rights violations and human trafficking.  

    We know just how busy Special Agent Morgan is and we very much appreciate her spending time with us this afternoon. 

    From one Angeleno to another, I thank you, Voviette, for your tireless work protecting my beloved hometown.  It is my distinct privilege to welcome you to the Antitrust Division.

    I now will hand things over to our moderator, Michelle, and thank you for being with us today.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Serial Fraudster Sentenced to 10 Years in Federal Prison for Stealing Nearly $3 Million and Five Indianapolis Homes

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime News

    EVANSVILLE— James Henley, 35, of Greenwood, Indiana, has been sentenced to ten years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit access device fraud, two counts of money laundering, and eight counts of wire fraud. Henley has also been ordered to pay $1,887,426.63 in restitution.

    According to court documents, over the course of three years, Henley orchestrated multiple large and complex fraud schemes, resulting in a total loss of $2,927,758.95 to individual homeowners, an Indiana attorney, a bank, and ten state governments. As part of his fraud schemes, Henley registered five fake businesses (OnTrack Real Estate Solutions, LDI Investments Corp, Lucario Investments, 317 Traffic, and Henley Real Estate Solutions) with the states of Indiana and Kentucky, claiming to serve as the Chief Executive Officer for most of them. None of the businesses were legitimate. Instead, Henley used the businesses to mask his identity, make his schemes appear more credible, and launder the stolen money.

    Henley’s schemes are broken down as follows:

    COVID-19 Fraud:

    Between May 2020 and March 2021, James Henley, his wife Jameka Henley, and his associate Jimmie Bickers used the stolen personally identifiable information of 76 real individuals to submit 120 unemployment insurance applications to ten states during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the applications were approved, the trio used 65 unemployment insurance debit cards to make purchases at retailers and withdraw cash at ATMs in the Evansville and Indianapolis areas. The states paid a total of $1,119,426.63 in unemployment benefits in connection with the group’s fraudulent applications.  In July 2020, Henley used funds withdrawn from ATMs to buy a Chevrolet Camaro for $22,801.

    Bickers and Jameka Henley have been formally charged for their roles in this scheme but have not pleaded guilty.

    Home Title Fraud:

    Between December 2021 and May 2023, Henley stole five homes in Indianapolis by filing fraudulent deeds with the Marion County Recorder’s Office. Through the filings, Henley claimed that the homeowners had sold their homes to his fake businesses, but, in reality, he had never even spoken with the homeowners.  Unbeknownst to the victims, Henley filed these fraudulent deeds and then sold the homes for significantly less than their market value, pocketing more than $260,000 in profits.

    Henley also attempted to steal and sell an additional 14 homes in Indianapolis and Evansville.  With one exception, the individuals who bought the homes from Henley took possession and ultimately kept the homes.

    For one homeowner, the property Henley stole was her childhood home. She purchased the home while her mother was in the hospital with the hope that, when her mother’s condition improved, her mother would be able to live out her remaining years in the house.

    Mortgage Fraud:

    In November 2021, an associate of Henley’s purchased a home in Indianapolis, using a mortgage loan from a bank.  In April 2022, Henley filed a fraudulent document with the Marion County Recorder’s Office to make it seem as if the mortgage loan had been paid off, when it had not been paid. Henley then filed a deed naming himself a joint owner of the home. Henley and his associate subsequently sold the property for $255,000, pocketing all the proceeds, even though the bank should have received the majority of the funds.

    Auto Loan Fraud:

    In March 2023, Henley purchased a Dodge Durango in Indianapolis for $71,479, using an auto loan from Everwise Credit Union. A few months later, in June 2023, Henley purchased a Chevrolet Silverado in Plainfield for $54,270, using a second loan from Everwise Credit Union.

    In October 2023, Henley connected a JPMorgan Chase bank account to his auto loans, via Everwise’s online payment portal.  Henley falsely represented that the Chase account belonged to Jimmie Bickers, and that he had authority to make payments on his loans using funds from the Chase account.

    The Chase account was actually an Indiana attorney’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA), which is a highly regulated bank account used by lawyers to hold client funds.  The interest earned on IOLTA accounts is used to fund grants for nonprofit groups that promote pro bono and access to justice programs. Henley did not have the attorney’s permission to access or withdraw funds from the IOLTA account.

    Between October and November 2023, Henley used the IOLTA account to make two payments, totaling $98,000, toward his auto loans.

    Henley has prior felony convictions for financial crimes, including theft, forgery, and fraud.

    “James Henley went to great lengths to coordinate exceptionally greedy, complex schemes that exploited hard-working families and state government programs,” said John E. Childress, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. “Undeterred by prior felony convictions for the same conduct, this defendant stole over a million dollars, wreaking financial and logistical havoc on hundreds of victims. The Department of Justice will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of fraud and seek prosecution as appropriate.”

    “James Henley filed fraudulent unemployment insurance (UI) claims in the names of identity theft victims in order to receive UI benefits to which he was not entitled. He enriched himself by defrauding a program that was intended to assist struggling American workers during an unprecedented global pandemic,” said Megan Howell, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Great Lakes Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General. “We and our law enforcement partners are committed to protecting the integrity of the UI system from those who seek to exploit this critical benefit program.”

    “This lengthy prison sentence sends a clear message: individuals who attempt to exploit and commit financial crime and identity theft will be brought to justice,” said Ramsey E. Covington, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Chicago Field Office. “IRS Criminal Investigation and our fellow law enforcement partners are committed to protecting the integrity of our financial institutions and will continue to hold criminals like James Henley accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

    “This case should serve as a powerful reminder that individuals with a history of financial crimes will face significant consequences when they demonstrate a blatant disregard for the law and continue to exploit and deceive others for personal gain,” said FBI Indianapolis Special Agent in Charge Herbert J. Stapleton. “The FBI, working alongside our law enforcement partners, will continue to hold those who perpetuate such offenses accountable and protect the public from those who manipulate the system for their own benefit.”

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Department of Labor-Office of the Inspector General, and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office Homeowner Protection Unit investigated this case. The sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge Matthew B. Brookman.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Childress thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Miller, who prosecuted this case.

    On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID‑19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts.

    Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID‑19  can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Devolution revolution: six areas to elect Mayors for first time

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Deputy Prime Minister brings six areas onto the Devolution Priority Programme with Mayors to be elected by May 2026 plus four new devolved institutions created.

    A major package of devolution has been announced today – with six new areas confirmed to join the government’s Devolution Priority Programme. 

    Delivering on the government’s commitment to widen devolution, areas will be given sweeping new powers, putting them on the fast track to deliver growth, opportunities, transport and housing for local communities.  

    The programme – one of the largest ever single packages of mayoral devolution in England – will support the areas to move towards devolution at pace, becoming mayor-led strategic authorities by May next year if they proceed.

    Today’s measures brings another 8.8m people under mayoral devolution – or another 15.38% of the population – bringing the total population who will see the benefit from devolution to over 44 million – close to 80% of the country.

    Greater devolution is key to unlocking regional growth, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change and putting more money into working people’s pockets, while also empowering them to direct change in their communities.

    For too long, political power has been hoarded in Whitehall. That’s why the government set out its proposals in the landmark English Devolution White Paper.

    The following areas agreed to join the programme:

    • Cumbria
    • Cheshire & Warrington
    • Norfolk & Suffolk
    • Greater Essex
    • Sussex & Brighton
    • Hampshire & Solent

    These six successful areas will now work to an ambitious devolution timetable, with full government backing, with consultations set to launch shortly. 

    In a further step forward for devolution being delivered at pace, today legislation comes into force to establish four new devolution institutions – as a result of devolution agreements confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister last year

    This includes establishing two new mayoral authorities in Greater Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire, and the formation of combined county authorities in Devon and Torbay, and Lancashire.

    The government is also focused on fixing the foundations of local government, with simpler and more effective structures and a reduction in unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Through a national programme of ambitious local government reform, the government will cut waste and improve accountability, ensuring taxpayers get value for money from their services. To achieve this, all councils in two-tier areas and small neighbouring unitary authorities are now being formally invited to develop unitary proposals – which will bring together lower and upper tier local government services in new unitary councils.   

    Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner said:

    The truth is that for all the promises of levelling up, central government’s first instinct is all too often to hoard power and hold our economy back. Too many decisions affecting too many people are made by too few.

    We promised to achieve a devolution revolution by overseeing the greatest transfer of power from Westminster in a generation, and today’s announcement will help raise living standards, improve public services and build the homes we so desperately need.

    By taking a common-sense approach to reorganisation, boosted by our reforms to give mayors a suite of vital new powers, we will make sure areas can truly deliver on our Plan for Change.

    Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon OBE MP said:

    In December, we asked areas to come forward to be part of our Devolution Priority Programme. The response was clear—this country is ready for change.

    While devolution can be hard to understand sometimes, the aims of this programme are simple: it puts more money in people’s pockets,  leads to quicker, better, cheaper transport, designed with local people in mind and puts politics back in the service of working people.

    Today’s announcements come just weeks after plans were set out in the English Devolution White Paper to grant mayors control over key areas including strategic planning, housing, transport and skills.

    This will equip these local leaders with the tools they need to deliver for their communities, putting England’s regions centre stage in the government’s Plan for Change missions to grow the economy, deliver 1.5 million homes, and boost opportunity across the country.

    The English Devolution Bill – which is due to be brought forward later this year – will also hardwire proposed new mayoral powers into law.

    In order to allow areas to deliver devolution to this ambitious timetable, the government has carefully considered requests from local councils to postpone a number of May 2025 local elections.

    The bar to postpone elections has been extremely high, and the government has been clear that delays will only be agreed where there is strong justification set out by the local authority. The government has agreed to half of these requests, and will postpone elections due in May 2025 until May 2026 for nine local councils. These councils made the strongest possible case that this is strictly necessary to deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe.

    There is an established precedent, including in the cases of North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Somerset elections, and Buckinghamshire district councils elections, under the previous government when reorganisation happened there. The legislation to enable this  will shortly be laid, subject to Parliamentary timetables. 

    In North Yorkshire, unitarisation enacted in 2023 has enabled the council to manage financial pressures though structural changes and service transformation, which is expected to achieve more than £40m in savings by March 2026. 

    Ministers will also continue to work with Lancashire, which is in a unique position as it is establishing a non-mayoral institution and is committed to reviewing its future devolution arrangements by the autumn, including steps to deepen devolution. This review will consider all options available for the area, including aligning with the Devolution Priority Programme when it concludes. 

    Also, given the urgency of creating sustainable unitary local government for Surrey, we will postpone the county election for that area from May 2025 to May 2026, helping to speed up reorganisation and deliver the local ambitions for devolution with the benefits it will bring.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Ukraine has every right to determine its own future: UK Statement to the OSCE

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    UK Military Advisor, Joby Rimmer, says Russia’s war of aggression has achieved little except the catastrophic loss of life, the loss of Russia’s military credibility, and the loss of Russia’s international reputation.

    Thank you, Mr Chair. Sadly, we have started this year like the last, and the overwhelming concern of this forum remains: Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. The UK remains resolutely committed to supporting the people of Ukraine as they defend their homeland. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the UK has provided over £3 billion per year in military, humanitarian and financial assistance, and this support will continue for as long as necessary to ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored.

    What has Russia accomplished so far? Russia’s full-scale invasion has been nothing short of a disaster. The Russian state’s bold assertion that the subjugation of Ukraine would be accomplished within a matter of days was made almost three years ago. Having failed in pursuit of its own strategic aims, the campaign has achieved little except the catastrophic loss of life on both sides, the loss of Russia’s military credibility, and the loss of Russia’s international reputation.

    The UN estimates that more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians and some 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed as a direct result of Russian aggression. Independent reports suggest approximately 830,000 Russian casualties, a number that demonstrates President Putin’s disregard for his own countrymen sent to fight in a war they did not choose. On 29th January alone, the Russian military lost 1,670 men with Russian casualties for January averaging over 1,500 per day. At the current rate of loss, Russia will have suffered over 1 million casualties by June 2025. As Russian casualties mount, Russian recruitment in Moscow has reduced, with military recruitment currently at 40 personnel a day, five times lower than the Summer-Autumn 2024 average of 200 recruits a day. Half of these recruits are reportedly indebted Russians and foreign nationals. The direct participation of DPRK troops in combat operations is another dangerous expansion of Putin’s illegal war. Of the 11,000 DPRK troops deployed in Kursk, reporting indicates that 4,000 are already casualties, including 1,000 fatalities.

    What has Russia accomplished militarily? Reports from the region paint a stark image of Russian military mediocrity. Russia has reportedly now lost over 3,700 Main Battle Tanks, over 8,000 armoured vehicles and 1,800 pieces of artillery. Any marginal Russian gains around Donetsk, Toretsk and Pokrovsk have been extremely costly, with progress augmented through the cynical use of glide bombs, drone and missile attacks, causing widespread damage to local housing, medical facilities and critical infrastructure. Independent reports state that Russia launched over 1,250 aerial bombs and over 1,000 attack drones into Ukraine in the last week of January. Nearly all resulted in civilian casualties.

    Last week, the Ukrainian army’s general staff reported that Russian forces bombed a boarding school in an area of Kursk under Ukrainian control, where civilians were sheltering and preparing to evacuate. Four people were killed and dozens injured. Russia’s continued disregard for human life cannot, and will not, be overlooked.

    Russia is also suffering the cost to its international reputation. The war in Ukraine clearly violates the UN Charter and contravenes our shared commitments of the Helsinki Final Act – respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity and the non-use of force. This full-scale invasion is not just an illegal act that contravenes international law; it is a serious miscalculation and one that fundamentally represents loss; most appallingly, the loss of human life, the loss of Russia’s international reputation, and the loss of Russia’s military credibility.

    Finally, the UK remains firm in its belief that any path to peace must be grounded in a position of strength for Ukraine. Ukraine must not be coerced into peace talks under duress or pressure from the aggressor. Ukraine has every right to determine its future, and its right to self-determination must be upheld. The UK is proud to be a steadfast friend of Ukraine and will not rest until Ukraine achieves peace on its own terms – Russia must cease hostilities in Ukraine and remove its forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders. Thank you, Mr Chair.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    Invasion of Ukraine

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: National Apprenticeship Week shines spotlight on opportunities for city residents

    Source: City of Wolverhampton

    The theme is Skills for Life, helping apprentices forge career pathways and secure permanent jobs.

    City of Wolverhampton Council is hosting a drop-in event at The Mander Centre on Saturday 15 February as part of National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) 2025.

    Those interested in learning how to ‘earn while you learn’ can turn up to the event between 10am and 2pm. It is on the ground floor, near TJ Hughes and is being held in partnership with Wolverhampton Black Country Careers HUB.

    Register in advance at Eventbrite and you could win one of four £25 Enjoy Wolverhampton gift cards.

    Since January last year the council has recruited another 32 apprentices, alongside upskilling staff and supporting city partners to develop apprenticeships.

    City of Wolverhampton Council’s Cabinet Member for City Development, Jobs and Skills, Councillor Chris Burden, said: “National Apprenticeship Week shines a spotlight on the benefits of apprenticeships in putting local people into good jobs and training, which in turn helps to deliver a thriving economy in the city.

    “Apprenticeships can change lives, helping people find employment, improve their skills and gain qualifications, while providing valuable alternative recruitment options for employers.

    “I encourage anyone with an interest in apprenticeships to come and get involved in the event at the Mander Centre and find out more about how you can earn while you learn.”

    Council apprentice Jude Aston recently gained a distinction in his Public Relations and Communications Level 4 Public Health Apprenticeship.

    He said: “I was nervous about how I was going to apply all my learning, but the best piece of advice I would give is trust the apprenticeship process, because it has worked and is a great way to develop your knowledge and skills.”

    Former library assistant Lucy Barford had a career change to become a Level 7 Solicitor Apprentice through Damar Training and the council and has been named the Damar Apprentice Champion Award.

    She said: “Changing careers to start an apprenticeship in law changed my life and opened possibilities I hadn’t previously considered.

    “My first apprenticeship was to become a certified paralegal, and I’m now working through a second apprenticeship training to be a solicitor. I’m proud and grateful to Damar and the council for such wonderful opportunities.”

    Esha Dadral, Level 3 Digital Content Apprentice, said: “I always wanted to kickstart my career in marketing, so when this opportunity came up it was a no brainer for me. In my opinion, an apprenticeship is the best way to gain the essential skills and knowledge for the career of your choice.”

    There are many types of apprenticeships on offer with employers in Wolverhampton. The different levels of qualification are Level 2 Intermediate Apprenticeship (GCSE equivalent), Level 3 Advanced Apprenticeship (A-Level equivalent), Level 4 or 5 Higher Apprenticeship (Foundation degree and above equivalent) and Level 6 or 7 Degree Apprenticeship (Bachelor’s or Master’s degree equivalent).

    Help is available through Wolves at Work which offers free, one to one employment support and advice for local people. If you are interested in finding out more about apprenticeship opportunities at the City of Wolverhampton Council email OD.Team@wolverhampton.gov.uk.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: Avid Bioservices poised for significant growth with new partners GHO Capital and Ampersand Capital Partners

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Avid Bioservices poised for significant growth with new partners GHO Capital and
    Ampersand Capital Partners

    • Acquisition of biologics Contract Development and Manufacturing Organisation Avid Bioservices now completed
    • GHO and Ampersand’s deep experience in CDMO investing to support Avid’s next stage of rapid growth including expanded offerings, talent investment and greater geographic reach

    London, UK, Boston, MA and Tustin, CA, February 5, 2025 — GHO Capital Partners LLP (“GHO”), the European specialist investor in global healthcare, and Ampersand Capital Partners (“Ampersand”), a private equity firm specialising in growth equity investments in the life sciences and healthcare sectors, today announced the successful closing of the previously announced acquisition of Avid Bioservices (“Avid” or the “Company”), a dedicated biologics Contract Development and Manufacturing Organisation (“CDMO”) working to improve patient lives by providing high quality development and manufacturing services to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

    Avid has experienced significant growth in recent years, offering its clients full lifecycle capabilities—from concept to commercial supply. With substantial investment already made by the Company in its capacity at its state-of-the art facilities and its expertise in bioprocess optimisation, analytical testing, and regulatory compliance, Avid delivers high-quality, industry leading complex biologics to a roster of international customers.

    GHO has considerable expertise in the CDMO sector through investments in its portfolio in companies like Ardena, Sterling Pharma Solutions, RoslinCT, and Alcami Corporation. Its strategy focuses on expanding technological capabilities, driving acquisitions, and supporting transatlantic expansion across the CDMO value chain, from early-stage development to commercial manufacturing. Leveraging its healthcare expertise and network, GHO transforms CDMOs to enhance their services and market reach, ultimately delivering better, faster and more accessible healthcare.

    Alan MacKay and Mike Mortimer, Managing Partners of GHO, commented: “We are delighted to start 2025 with the completion of this transaction, our first public to private deal. GHO has a deep understanding of the CDMO sector and Avid perfectly exemplifies a company that is operating in high growth markets supporting the growing biotech sector in research and development and big pharma and large biotech for the commercialisation of cutting-edge biologics. Avid’s recent investments, both in capacity and its exemplary team, have created a strong foundation for future growth. We look forward to partnering closely with the Avid team to unlock the business’s full potential.”

    Nick Green, President and CEO of Avid, said: “Avid has succeeded by evolving and adapting to meet our customers’ complex development and manufacturing needs. The completion of this transaction marks an exciting milestone as we move forward with new owners in GHO Capital and Ampersand who will provide us with access to resources that will accelerate our growth. With their support, we are well-positioned to enhance our capabilities, expand our service offerings, and deliver even greater value to our customers in this next phase of our journey.”

    David Anderson, General Partner of Ampersand, added: “Avid has earned its reputation as a leader in biopharmaceutical development and manufacturing through technical excellence, customised solutions, and consistent regulatory compliance. By combining our deep industry expertise with Avid’s established capabilities, we are positioned to deliver enhanced value and accelerate innovation for clients globally.”

    On 7 November 2024, GHO and Ampersand entered into a definitive merger agreement for Avid to be acquired by funds managed by GHO and Ampersand in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $1.1 billion. With the completion of the transaction, Avid’s stockholders are entitled to receive $12.50 per share in cash. The Company’s common stock has ceased trading and will be delisted from Nasdaq.

    Advisors
    William Blair served as buyside financial advisers, Ropes & Gray served as legal counsel, ClearView Healthcare Partners served as commercial advisor and Alvarez & Marsal served as financial advisors to GHO and Ampersand.

    Contacts:

    GHO Capital

    Amber Fennell / Kris Lam
    ICR Healthcare
    +44 7739658783
    ghocapital@icrhealthcare.com

    Avid Bioservices

    Stephanie Diaz
    Vida Strategic Partners
    415-675-7401
    sdiaz@vidasp.com

    Tim Brons
    Vida Strategic Partners
    415-675-7402
    tbrons@vidasp.com

    Aaron Palash / Allison Sobel
    Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher
    (212) 355-4449

    About GHO Capital

    Global Healthcare Opportunities, or GHO Capital Partners LLP, is a leading specialist healthcare investment advisor based in London. GHO Capital applies global capabilities and perspectives to unlock high growth healthcare opportunities, targeting Pan-European and transatlantic internationalisation to build market leading businesses of strategic global value. GHO Capital’s proven investment track record reflects the unrivalled depth of our industry expertise and network. GHO Capital partners with strong management teams to generate long-term sustainable value, improving the efficiency of healthcare delivery to enable better, faster, more accessible healthcare. For further information, please visit www.ghocapital.com.

    About Avid Bioservices, Inc.

    Avid Bioservices is a dedicated CDMO focused on development and CGMP manufacturing of biologics. The Company provides a comprehensive range of process development, CGMP clinical and commercial manufacturing services for the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries. With more than 30 years of experience producing biologics, Avid’s services include CGMP clinical and commercial drug substance manufacturing, bulk packaging, release and stability testing and regulatory submissions support. For early-stage programs the Company provides a variety of process development activities, including cell line development, upstream and downstream development and optimization, analytical methods development, testing and characterization. The scope of our services ranges from standalone process development projects to full development and manufacturing programs through commercialization. www.avidbio.com

    About Ampersand Capital Partners

    Ampersand Capital Partners, founded in 1988, is a middle-market private equity firm with $3 billion of assets under management, dedicated to growth-oriented investments in the healthcare sector. With offices in Boston, MA, and Amsterdam, Netherlands, Ampersand leverages a unique blend of private equity and operating experience to build value and drive long-term performance alongside its portfolio company management teams. Ampersand has helped build numerous market-leading companies across each of the firm’s core healthcare sectors. For additional information, visit www.ampersandcapital.com or follow us on LinkedIn.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Double Your Deposit and Get $50 Bonus with 100x Leverage Crypto Trading at BexBack – No KYC!

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SINGAPORE, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — With the price of bitcoin once again trading below $100,000, many analysts believe it will enter a long period of high volatility. Holding spot positions may not continue to generate profits in the short term. BexBack Exchange is stepping up its efforts to provide traders with irresistible preferential packages. The platform now offers a 100% deposit bonus, a $50 welcome bonus for new users, and a 100x leverage on cryptocurrency trading, creating unparalleled opportunities for investors.

    What Is 100x Leverage and How Does It Work?

    Simply put, 100x leverage allows you to open larger trading positions with less capital. For example:

    Suppose the Bitcoin price is $100,000 that day, and you open a long contract with 1 BTC. After using 100x leverage, the transaction amount is equivalent to 100 BTC.

    One day later, if the price rises to $105,000, your profit will be (105,000 – 100,000) * 100 BTC / 100,000 = 5 BTC, a yield of up to 500%.

    With BexBack’s deposit bonus

    BexBack offers a 100% deposit bonus. If the initial investment is 2 BTC, the profit will increase to 10 BTC, and the return on investment will double to 1000%.

    Note: Although leveraged trading can magnify profits, you also need to be wary of liquidation risks.

    How Does the 100% Deposit Bonus Work?
    The deposit bonus from BexBack cannot be directly withdrawn but can be used to open larger positions and increase potential profits. Additionally, during significant market fluctuations, the bonus can serve as extra margin, effectively reducing the risk of liquidation.

    About BexBack?

    BexBack is a leading cryptocurrency derivatives platform that offers 100x leverage on BTC, ETH, ADA, SOL, and XRP futures contracts. It is headquartered in Singapore with offices in Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. It holds a US MSB (Money Services Business) license and is trusted by more than 500,000 traders worldwide. Accepts users from the United States, Canada, and Europe. There are no deposit fees, and traders can get the most thoughtful service, including 24/7 customer support.

    Why recommend BexBack?

    No KYC Required: Start trading immediately without complex identity verification.

    100% Deposit Bonus: Double your funds, double your profits.

    High-Leverage Trading: Offers up to 100x leverage, maximizing investors’ capital efficiency.

    Demo Account: Comes with 10 BTC in virtual funds, ideal for beginners to practice risk-free trading.

    Comprehensive Trading Options: Feature-rich trading available via Web and mobile applications.

    Convenient Operation: No slippage, no spread, and fast, precise trade execution.

    Global User Support: Enjoy 24/7 customer service, no matter where you are.

    Lucrative Affiliate Rewards: Earn up to 50% commission, perfect for promoters.

    Take Action Now—Don’t Miss Another Opportunity!

    If you missed the previous crypto bull run, this could be your chance. With BexBack’s 100x leverage and 100% deposit bonus and $50 bonus for new users (complete one trade within one week of registration), you can be a winner in the new bull run.

    Sign up on BexBack now, claim your exclusive bonus and start accumulating more BTC today!

    Website: www.bexback.com

    Contact: business@bexback.com

    Contact:
    Amanda
    business@bexback.com

    Disclaimer: This content is provided by BexBack. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the content provider. The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities. Please conduct your own research and invest at your own risk.

    Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/2d7570e1-dd49-41f2-bb56-fdde6bb57717

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/b704fe83-5d72-424f-8e4d-faedb85932fd

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/b1489dbf-1cba-4388-8bb7-dd56cd0dd96f

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3653b677-5659-44e3-b40f-346380acd8ca

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: New Chargeflow Research Shows that As Many as 80 Percent of Chargebacks Are Abusive

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TEL AVIV, Israel and WILMINGTON, Del., Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Chargeflow, the pioneering chargeback platform tailored exclusively for online businesses, today announced a new research report, The Psychology of Chargebacks: Uncovering Why Consumers Dispute Charges. Featuring insights from 701 consumers, the research shows that customer demands for immediate issue resolution and other factors are leading to soaring incidents of unfriendly fraud that could be costing merchants as much as $117 billion annually.

    According to Mastercard’s 2024 Outlook: Strategic Insights for Issuers and Merchants report, U.S. chargeback transaction volume is expected to reach 146 million chargebacks in 2026. In its latest report, Chargeflow provides details that look beyond this growth to show why customers are choosing to file chargebacks over resolving issues directly with merchants.

    Prompt Customer Service is Critical
    Customers who have experienced issues with a merchant expect the situation to be resolved quickly. In fact, many give merchants zero opportunity to remedy a problem. When asked how long they would typically wait to file a chargeback after encountering an issue, 23 percent stated they would file immediately. Another 38 percent stated they would wait just 1-3 days, while 23 percent said they were happy with response times between 4-7 days. The bottom line, customers are giving merchants’ customer service teams little to no time to identify the issue and de-escalate any problems before disputes are filed.

    Lack of Immediate Communication Opens Door for Chargebacks
    Customers value merchant communications when it comes to resolving issues. According to the research, 64 percent say it’s important they receive immediate communication from a merchant regarding a complaint, with an additional 31 percent saying it is somewhat important. Their goal is unanimous–90 percent of consumers report they typically try to resolve a matter with the merchant before initiating a chargeback.

    While customers seek resolution, their patience quickly runs thin. According to the research, 85 percent of customers are likely or somewhat likely to move forward and file a chargeback if a merchant doesn’t respond to their complaint within a reasonable timeframe. With such demands, it should come as no surprise that 80 percent of those who initiated a chargeback said they were never contacted by a merchant with customer service teams that are likely understaffed and overburdened.

    Dispute Policies Encourage Chargebacks
    Overworked teams are not the only issue. Customer-first dispute policies also lead to chargeback success rates that do little to dissuade customers from acting—only 12 percent report having had a chargeback denied. Eight percent of respondents said they had a chargeback refuted for insufficient evidence, 3 percent said their claim was denied because merchants provided counterevidence, and 2 percent for a policy violation. With that level of success, it’s not surprising that 98 percent of consumers have had a neutral to highly satisfactory experience with the chargeback process offered by their bank or credit card.

    “The industry is acutely aware that chargebacks are soaring but there is far less clarity on what’s driving this surge. This research shows that a lack of patience on the side of customers is driving a vast majority of chargebacks that are not only unnecessary but also costing merchants billions of dollars,” said Ariel Chen, Co-Founder and CEO of Chargeflow. “This situation is exacerbated by the use of customer-first dispute policies which make it more appealing to file a dispute than to work with customer service teams towards a resolution. Stopping this cycle requires merchants to improve their support systems to the point where resolving an issue is a more attractive option to customers.”

    Bad Customer Experiences Also Drive Chargebacks
    Customer reliance on chargebacks is not only tied to perceived poor service resolution. The Chargeflow research found a direct correlation between customer experiences and chargeback. For example, when asked about the likelihood of initiating a chargeback if they encountered an issue with a purchase, 27 percent of respondents stated they were highly likely, and 35 percent stated they were somewhat likely. Only 11 percent of customers said they are somewhat unlikely and very unlikely. This finding is consistent with the core theme that consumers view chargeback as a standard tool for addressing perceived problems with a merchant.

    Lack of Awareness Leads Consumers to Unknowingly Committing Friendly Fraud

    Chargeflow’s The Psychology of Chargebacks report found that nearly 80 percent of chargeback cases result from friendly fraud. Despite this figure, this new research finds that most customers are unaware they are engaging in such activity. When asked if they initiated a false chargeback (when they knew the merchant was in the right and they should not), only 2.9 percent of respondents said they had done so. That means close to 97 percent believe they have not incorrectly filed a chargeback—rates that cannot be correct.

    In fact, the research found that only 9 percent of respondents said they filed a chargeback because they disagreed with a brand, its values, or its customer experience. As a result, consumers likely believe that they have rightly used their customer protections and not purposely or maliciously attached merchants.

    Survey Methodology
    This survey features data gathered from responses from a population sample of 700 people. Of this group, there was a near-even split between four age demographics: 18-34 (20 percent), 35-44 (28 percent), 45-54 (27), and 55-99 (25 percent). Forty-four percent of respondents listed as Male and 56 percent as female. The margin of error rests at 4 percent, with a confidence level of 95 percent.

    To access the complete Psychology of Chargebacks: Analyzing the Hidden Factors That Push Consumers to Dispute Charges report, please visit here.

    About Chargeflow
    Chargeflow is the world’s first fully automated chargeback management solution, designed for eCommerce merchants by eCommerce entrepreneurs. Chargeflow leverages technology and generative AI, along with human expertise, to help recover lost revenue and alleviate chargeback pains for online merchants. Chargeflow has an industry-leading win rate and guarantees return on investment, providing a risk-free entry for any business interested in using its service. For more information, please visit https://www.chargeflow.io/.

    Media Contact:
    Doug Fraim
    Public Relations Manager, Chargeflow
    press@chargeflow.io

    Chargebacks represent a significant challenge in the global financial landscape, impacting merchants across various industries. Here’s an overview of the worldwide chargeback volume, both in terms of the number of chargebacks and their monetary value:

    Number of Chargebacks:

    • 2023 Data: In 2023, the global ecosystem experienced approximately 238 million chargebacks. Projections indicate that by 2026, this number could rise to around 337 million, marking a 42% increase. citeturn0search0

    Monetary Value of Chargebacks:

    • 2023 Estimates: The total cost associated with chargebacks worldwide was projected to reach $117.46 billion in 2023. This figure encompasses various expenses, including lost sales revenue, fees, and administrative costs borne by merchants and financial institutions. citeturn0search2
    • U.S. Specific Data: Focusing on the United States, cardholders disputed at least $65.2 billion worth of charges in 2023. When considering additional factors such as the broader financial impact on merchants, the total cost to U.S. merchants was estimated at approximately $243.75 billion. citeturn0search1

    Average Cost per Chargeback:

    • Per Incident Cost: On average, each chargeback in 2023 cost merchants about $191. This estimate is based on an average disputed transaction amount of $90 and includes various associated costs. citeturn0search2

    These statistics underscore the substantial financial impact of chargebacks on businesses globally. The rising trend in both the number and value of chargebacks highlights the importance for merchants to implement effective prevention and management strategies to mitigate potential losses.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: RealtyX Revolutionizes Real-World Asset Finance (RWAfi) with End-to-End Tokenization and Yield Optimization Platform

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HONG KONG, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — RealtyX, an innovative Real-World Asset Finance (RWAfi) platform, is poised to transform the real estate and financial landscape by offering a comprehensive, end-to-end solution that goes beyond simple tokenization. Backed by strategic partnerships with leading RWA players and selected for the prestigious Hong Kong Cyberport Incubation Program, RealtyX is preparing for its highly anticipated Token Generation Event (TGE) in February.

    Unlocking the Full Potential of RWAfi

    Tokenization has long been heralded as the future of real estate and alternative assets, but RealtyX is taking the concept to the next level. Rather than focusing solely on asset digitization, RealtyX provides a holistic financial ecosystem that enhances liquidity, enables seamless trading, and optimizes yield for investors.

    RealtyX’s platform integrates automated passive earning mechanisms and DeFi composability, allowing users to generate consistent returns while ensuring accessibility and transparency in real-world asset investments. By streamlining complex real estate processes, RealtyX delivers a frictionless experience for both investors and asset owners, increasing overall market efficiency.

    “RealtyX was built with a singular vision: to bridge the gap between traditional real estate and decentralized finance in a way that is seamless, scalable, and rewarding for all stakeholders. Our goal is to offer more than tokenization— we are redefining the entire financial ecosystem around real-world assets,” said [Executive Name], [Title] at RealtyX.

    Strategic Partnerships with Industry Leaders

    RealtyX’s commitment to innovation is underscored by its partnerships with top-tier RWA projects and DeFi leaders. These partnerships enable RealtyX to offer superior liquidity, capital efficiency, and enhanced financial instruments for users. Some of its key industry allies include:

    • Plume Network – A blockchain optimized for real-world assets, ensuring scalable and secure transactions.
    • IX Swap – A DeFi-based exchange that enhances secondary market liquidity for tokenized assets.
    • Polytrade – A liquidity infrastructure provider supporting DeFi and real-world asset integration.
    • Defactor – A leading RWA protocol focused on providing enterprise-grade financial solutions.

    By collaborating with these major players, RealtyX ensures that its users gain access to high-quality infrastructure, cutting-edge DeFi tools, and diversified investment opportunities.

    RealtyX Joins Hong Kong’s Cyberport Incubation Program

    In recognition of its groundbreaking approach, RealtyX has been selected for the Hong Kong Cyberport Incubation Program, a highly competitive initiative known for supporting some of the most innovative Web3 and fintech startups. Cyberport alumni include Animoca Brands and Certik, both industry giants in their respective fields.

    Through this program, RealtyX will gain access to world-class mentorship, funding opportunities, and a vast network of investors and innovators. Cyberport’s backing further solidifies RealtyX’s reputation as a trailblazer in the RWAfi space and positions it for rapid global expansion.

    Utility-Backed TGE: RealtyX Prepares for Token Generation Event

    RealtyX is gearing up for its Token Generation Event (TGE) in February, introducing the RX token, a utility-backed asset designed to fuel the RealtyX ecosystem. Unlike speculative digital assets, RX serves a critical role in the platform, offering:

    • Exclusive platform access – RX token holders will unlock premium features and investment opportunities.
    • Governance participation – Token holders will have a voice in key decision-making processes.
    • Staking and rewards – RX stakers can earn passive income through yield optimization mechanisms.

    The TGE will provide early adopters with a unique opportunity to be part of the RealtyX ecosystem from its inception, with further details set to be announced soon.

    RealtyX’s Vision for the Future of RWAfi

    RealtyX is dedicated to pioneering the future of Real-World Asset Finance by building a trusted and efficient platform that seamlessly integrates blockchain technology with real estate investments. Since its inception, the platform has already achieved significant milestones, including:

    • Successful tokenization of the first real estate property (RST) in Dubai.
    • Ongoing rental income distribution to RST holders.
    • Launch of a thriving secondary market for on-chain property transactions.
    • Winning the WOW Summit Startup Competition.
    • Acceptance into the SpringX Move Accelerator program.

    With a strong foundation and unwavering commitment to bridging traditional finance with the Web3 economy, RealtyX is set to redefine how real-world assets are tokenized, managed, and monetized.

    Stay Updated

    To learn more about RealtyX and its game-changing approach to Real-World Asset Finance (RWAfi), visit www.realtyx.co.

    For the latest updates on the upcoming TGE, follow RealtyX on X (Twitter): https://x.com/RealtyX_DAO.

    About RealtyX

    RealtyX is a next-generation Real-World Asset Finance (RWAfi) platform, designed to seamlessly integrate real estate and DeFi. With a focus on tokenization, liquidity solutions, and yield optimization, RealtyX empowers investors with enhanced access to real-world assets. Recognized for its innovation and strategic industry partnerships, RealtyX continues to lead the charge in bringing tangible value to blockchain-based finance.

    For media inquiries, partnership opportunities, or further details, contact partnership@realtyx.co

    Disclaimer: This content is provided by RealtyX. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the content provider. The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities. Please conduct your own research and invest at your own risk.

    Photos accompanying this announcement are available at

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6799bba8-3cfa-46c4-a57d-5877e8cdddf6

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3597b473-34fd-45d4-9eab-f5e561058632

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6215eb83-0127-48cf-a5ab-599c7359affe

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: A Warning from GAO – America’s Fiscal Health at Risk

    Source: US Government Accountability Office

    WASHINGTON (February 5, 2025) As the federal government’s publicly held debt continues to grow, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) today issued its annual report on the nation’s fiscal health. The report again warns Congress and the Administration about the federal government’s long-term fiscal path and calls for decisive action. As it has since 2017, GAO recommends a strategy be developed to inform the difficult policy choices in addressing our unsustainable fiscal path. 

    “With this report, we project that public debt will reach an unprecedented level by 2027,” said Gene L. Dodaro, U.S. Comptroller General and head of the GAO. “We’re calling on Congress and the Administration to act now to develop and implement a strategy to address this acute challenge. Inaction could result in great difficulties for many Americans and impede policymakers’ flexibility to respond to future economic recessions or unexpected events.”

    Unless spending and revenue policies change, the debt will continue to grow faster than the economy—even during times of growth. This is unsustainable. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in, marking the fifth year in a row with a deficit above $1 trillion. This gap will continue to grow as revenue is not expected to cover growing spending for mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare. The government will have to keep borrowing to finance budget deficits each year. GAO projects that, absent a change in fiscal policy, debt held by the public will grow more than twice as fast as the economy over a 30-year period and will be double the size of the U.S. economy by 2047.

    Similar to other borrowers, the government has to pay interest on its debt. As the debt increases and interest rates rise, the government’s annual spending on interest costs have grown dramatically—and will continue to grow without policy changes. In FY 2024, the government spent $882 billion on net interest—more than was spent on national defense or Medicare. Annual spending on net interest has more than tripled since FY 2017, when it was $263 billion. We estimate spending on interest will be more than $1 trillion in FY 2025.  The growing debt and interest costs pose serious economic, security, and social challenges to the U.S.

    Higher interest rates for the government mean higher interest rates for individuals, households, and businesses. This adversely impact the lives of Americans who may experience higher borrowing costs, stagnant wages, and more expensive goods and services. Find out more with GAO’s new resource, How Could the Federal Debt Affect You?

    GAO’s past and current work supports a strategy for long-term fiscal sustainability. That strategy, outlined in today’s report, calls on the federal government to:

    • Establish fiscal rules and targets to address spending and revenue imbalances
    • Address financing gaps for Social Security and Medicare
    • Reduce improper payments and improve fraud risk management
    • Replace the debt limit with an approach linking debt decisions to spending and revenue decisions. Statutory changes are needed to avert the risk of government default and its potentially severe consequences.

    The sooner the federal government takes action to address the nation’s fiscal outlook, the less drastic those efforts will need to be. Congress and the administration will need to make difficult budgetary and policy decisions to address the key drivers of the debt and alter the government’s fiscal trajectory.

    For more information, visit GAO’s web page, America’s Fiscal Future, or contact Jessica Baxter at media@gao.gov.

    #####

    The Government Accountability Office, known as the investigative arm of Congress, is an independent, nonpartisan agency that exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities. GAO also works to improve the performance of the federal government and ensure its accountability to the American people. The agency examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO provides Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonideological, fair, and balanced. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    When Donald Trump assumed power in the United States for a second time, it was initially assumed that it didn’t bode well for Ukraine.

    During his first term, Trump maintained questionable connections to Russia. Furthermore, his claim that he would end the Russia-Ukraine conflict in a day — with Russia still occupying much of Ukraine — led many analysts to believe that any such policy would favour the Russians.



    Read more:
    Can Trump deliver on his promise to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

    These fears, at least so far, have not come to pass. In Trump’s inaugural address, many of the items he highlighted on the campaign trail figured prominently.

    Noticeably absent, however, was Ukraine. When it comes to Trump’s “America First,” philosophy, Ukraine and Russia have seemingly lost significance.

    Strategy of distraction

    Trump, with his bombastic nature, dominates the media cycle. His proclamations, social media statements threats and insults occur with such regularity that it’s difficult for anyone to keep pace.

    Just as one news item comes into focus, a new comment or ultimatum overtakes it.

    In many ways, this works to Trump’s advantage. People can be too distracted by the latest outlandish statement to pay close attention as Trump pursues his ambitious domestic policy goals. Lost in the media turmoil of Trump’s executive orders, tariff threats and heightened deportation campaign has been a shift on Russia and Ukraine.

    Ukraine, for Trump, is a secondary concern. His priorities, first and foremost, are domestic and aimed at remaking America.

    As such, rather than being driven by any foreign policy goals, Trump’s engagement with Ukraine and Russia will be determined by how he perceives he can benefit domestically in return. His calculations, in this regard, appear to have shifted.

    Complicated relationship with Ukraine

    Trump’s relationship with Ukraine during his first term was, to put it mildly, difficult. His infatuation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s open disdain for Ukraine, caused him to largely ignore the country.

    When he did pay attention to Ukraine, it was as part of an effort to acquire information to damage his presumed political rival, former president Joe Biden. This effort resulted in Trump withholding aid from Ukraine unless it acquiesced to his demands.

    Trump’s position on Ukraine, however, has shifted over time. His antagonistic relationship with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has seemingly improved.

    While there are still tension points, most notably when Zelenskyy visited Pennsylvania during the U.S. presidential election campaign, Trump has moderated his comments on his Ukrainian counterpart. Ukraine’s purchase of American equipment and ammunition, furthermore, supports Trump’s focus on domestic production.

    Lastly, Trump has expressed interest in accessing Ukraine’s rare earth metals. China currently dominates the rare earth metal market, which puts the U.S. at a disadvantage due to the minerals’ importance for future technological innovation. That means Trump has a stake in Ukraine’s future.

    These developments don’t mean the relationship is perfect. Instead, Trump is unlikely to be a burden to Ukraine, and this development is in part due to his declining view of Putin.

    Trump/Putin relationship

    The initial assumption of many analysts when Trump came to power again was that he would immediately favour Putin. The close relationship between the two is well-documented, and has been open to considerable speculation as to why Trump courted such favour with Putin in his first term.

    Trump, however, has upped his rhetoric against Russia since assuming the presidency. First, he threatened Putin with additional economic sanctions. Second, he stated that he would like OPEC to increase oil production and therefore inhibit Russia’s war effort by undermining its primary source of revenue.

    Why the pivot? It likely goes to the core foundation of Trump’s persona: he likes winners. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia and Putin have displayed considerable weakness in execution during the war. The Russian military, once feared globally, has largely proven to be a paper tiger.

    While Russia still has several advantages in the war, it is only doing so by leveraging its future. According to Trump, Russia is in “big trouble” in terms of its economic woes. Trump is not alone in this view. Analysts, as well as perhaps Putin himself, recognize the serious challenges facing the Russian economy.

    It’s not just economically that Russia has leveraged its future. To avoid straining the Russian people, Putin has reached a deal with North Korea, which is providing soldiers for the war against Ukraine.



    Read more:
    Amid the West’s wavering aid to Ukraine, North Korea backs Russia in a mutually beneficial move

    Furthermore, Russia has deepened ties with Iran in exchange for Iranian drones.

    What Putin has provided North Korea and Iran in exchange for these soldiers is unclear. That said, Russia can only provide any technological exchanges for these soldiers and drones one time, as once shared, the same technology cannot be part of other arrangements. This reality limits Russia’s influence in the years ahead.

    The new art of the deal?

    Trump, almost certainly, wants to make a peace deal on Ukraine. It would burnish his reputation as a statesman while simultaneously demonstrating American strength and influence to the world at a minimal cost to the U.S.

    The terms of that deal, however, have shifted in the face of Russian weakness.

    That’s why it’s not surprising that the mercurial Trump has pivoted his stance on Russia. Until Russia can display the strength that Trump thought it possessed, he’s unlikely to do the Russians any favours in the future.

    James Horncastle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him – https://theconversation.com/why-is-trumps-preferential-treatment-of-russia-shifting-because-theres-nothing-in-it-for-him-248365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI: Nuvini Regains Compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(2)

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nuvini Group Limited (Nasdaq: NVNI) (“Nuvini” or the “Company”), a leading acquirer of private SaaS B2B companies in Latin America, today announced that it received notice from the Listing Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) on February 5th, 2025, indicating that the Company has regained compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rules 5250(c)(2).

    On February 4, 2025, the Company filed the required Form 6-K to report its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of profit or loss and statements of financial position as of and for the quarter, as required by Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(2).

    About Nuvini

    Headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil, Nuvini is the leading private serial software business acquirer in Latin America. The Nuvini Group acquires software companies within SaaS markets in Latin America. It focuses on acquiring profitable “business-to-business” SaaS companies with a consolidated business model, recurring revenue, positive cash generation and relevant growth potential. The Nuvini Group enables its acquired companies to provide mission-critical solutions to customers within its industry or sector. Its business philosophy is to invest in established companies and foster an entrepreneurial environment that would enable companies to become leaders in their respective industries. The Nuvini Group’s goal is to buy, retain and create value through long-term partnerships with the existing management of its acquired companies.

    Nuvini Investor Relations and Media Contact:

    Deb Toledo
    ir@nuvini.co

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Risk Strategies Acquires Griffith Insurance, LLP

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    BOSTON, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Risk Strategies, a leading North American specialty insurance brokerage and risk management and consulting firm, today announced it has acquired Griffith Insurance, LLP, a full-service independent insurance agency based in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    Founded in 1988, Griffith Insurance provides a wide range of risk and liability products to a diverse client base, including commercial and private client business segments. The agency also has a focus on the construction industry, creating alignment and opportunity for Risk Strategies, which has developed one of the country’s leading surety bond practices. Additionally, Griffith also has a strong personal lines business, where its focus on high net-worth individuals and family offices, complements the Risk Strategies National Private Client Services Practice and its broader services, capabilities, and resources.

    “I’m excited to welcome the team at Griffith Insurance to the Risk Strategies family,” said Rob Rosenzweig, Northeast Regional Leader, Risk Strategies. “This is a highly experienced group of professionals who bring with them the same client-first ethos that has made Risk Strategies an industry leader. It’s a great addition to the company.”

    Since its 2017 acquisition of medical malpractice specialist Cornerstone Professional Liability Consultants, Risk Strategies has grown to become a market leader in Pennsylvania through organic growth and a number of strategic acquisitions, including:

    • Leading surety bond specialists J.W. Surety, along with its affiliates Lance Surety and Bryant Surety
    • Mahorsky Group, Inc. and its affiliate entity Brick Procurement, Inc.
    • Employee benefits specialist Fairmount Benefits Company
    • Three retail commercial specialty agencies: Dash & Love, Joyce Insurance Group, and Robert C. Williams Agency
    • National specialty benefits consulting firm Cambridge Advisory Group

    “Becoming a part of Risk Strategies is a great fit for our organization, our people and our business,” said Tom Griffith, Owner, Griffith Insurance, LLP. “This move brings an array of specialty capabilities and resources that will help us better serve current clients and compete more effectively for new ones.”

    Beyond construction and personal lines, Griffith offers its broader client base commercial insurance services, such as business owners’ policies, commercial auto, and now, the expertise and capabilities of the full Risk Strategies line of specialty practices.

    About Risk Strategies

    Risk Strategies, part of Accession Risk Management Group, is a North American specialty brokerage firm offering comprehensive risk management services, property and casualty insurance and reinsurance placement, employee benefits, private client services, consulting services, and financial & wealth solutions. The 9th largest U.S. privately held broker, we advise businesses and personal clients, have access to all major insurance markets, and 30+ specialty industry and product line practices and experts in 200+ offices – Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Grand Cayman, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Montreal, Nashville, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, DC. RiskStrategies.com

    Media Contact
    Alana Bannan
    Senior Account Executive
    360-975-1812
    Rsc@matternow.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: GCM Grosvenor Expands Insurance Solutions Group with the Hire of Joe Metzger as Managing Director

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — GCM Grosvenor (Nasdaq: GCMG), a leading global alternative asset management solutions provider, is pleased to announce that Joe Metzger has joined the firm as a Managing Director in its Insurance Solutions Group, as the firm continues to expand its capabilities to meet the insurance industry’s unique investment needs.

    Mr. Metzger brings nearly two decades of financial services and insurance industry experience, including prior roles at Guardian Life and TIAA-CREF. He has a distinguished track record at the intersection of insurance and alternative investments, including sourcing, structuring, and executing transactions between insurance carriers and alternative asset managers.

    “We are excited to welcome Joe to our team,” said Michael Sacks, Chairman and CEO of GCM Grosvenor. “His extensive experience and proven success in unlocking value for insurers will be instrumental in advancing our capabilities and providing partnership opportunities that can meet the unique needs of our insurance clients.”

    GCM Grosvenor’s Insurance Solutions Group offers customized and turnkey alternative investment solutions tailored to the unique needs of global insurance companies. The team employs a broad range of innovative strategies to deliver capital-efficient products and opportunities.

    For more information about GCM Grosvenor and its Insurance Solutions Group, please visit www.gcmgrosvenor.com/insurance-solutions.

    About GCM Grosvenor

    GCM Grosvenor (Nasdaq: GCMG) is a global alternative asset management solutions provider with approximately $80 billion in assets under management across private equity, infrastructure, real estate, credit, and absolute return investment strategies. The firm has specialized in alternatives for more than 50 years and is dedicated to delivering value for clients by leveraging its cross-asset class and flexible investment platform. GCM Grosvenor’s experienced team of approximately 550 professionals serves a global client base of institutional and individual investors. The firm is headquartered in Chicago, with offices in New York, Toronto, London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul and Sydney. For more information, visit: gcmgrosvenor.com.

    Media Contact

    Tom Johnson and Abigail Ruck
    H/Advisors Abernathy (on behalf of GCM Grosvenor)
    tom.johnson@h-advisors.global / abigail.ruck@h-advisors.global

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Industry and Municipal Leaders Unite to Fast-Track Cleantech Adoption Across Canada

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Foresight Canada is proud to announce the formation of the Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board, a key initiative aimed at accelerating the deployment of vetted sustainable technologies across Canadian municipalities and organizations. The advisory board will provide strategic guidance to Cleantech Adoption Platform, which is set to launch later this year, ensuring that Canadian innovators, and public and private sector leaders, can connect more effectively to drive measurable impact.

    Joining the advisory board are exceptional individuals from across Canada, each bringing their unique expertise in CAP’s initial focus sectors: Built Environment, Energy Generation and Storage, Water Tech, Transportation, and Waste Management. These leaders understand the complexities of integrating cleantech solutions into industrial and municipal operations, and will play a critical role in identifying and overcoming adoption barriers. Their strategic guidance will be invaluable as the platform expands to include additional sectors and end-users.

    The Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board

    • Adrian Dirassar (Senior Legal Counsel)
    • Bofa Udisi (Project Manager, City of Toronto; Founder, AlphaCor Sustainability Solutions)
    • Samantha Agtarap (Program Manager, powerNEXT, Foresight Canada; Councillor, Port Moody City Council)
    • Todd Burns (CEO, Cypher Environmental)

    Bridging the Gap Between Innovators and End-Users

    Cleantech adoption faces two key challenges: innovators need buyers, and buyers need streamlined access to proven solutions. Foresight Canada recognizes the urgency of fostering these connections to ensure that high-impact cleantech innovations reach the market faster. The Cleantech Adoption Platform serves as a centralized hub designed to simplify and de-risk solution sourcing for industrial and municipal buyers.

    Buyers will gain access to a curated selection of ready-to-deploy cleantech solutions, commercial products, and completed pilots (TRL 8+). The platform provides a structured, data-backed approach to accelerating procurement and adoption.

    Key Features of the Cleantech Adoption Platform

    The platform offers a holistic experience for both public and private sector buyers, providing invaluable tools and resources to facilitate adoption, including:

    • Comprehensive technology database of products and solutions with detailed specifications
    • Case studies and success stories showcasing real-world impact
    • Technology roadmaps and business cases to support procurement decisions
    • Self-guided learning modules and peer-to-peer engagement for decision-makers
    • Validated assessments, including LCAs, test results, and other evaluation tools
    • Matchmaking tools and support to streamline connections between buyers and innovators

    A Secure, Buyer-Focused Platform

    Listing a solution is entirely free for all cleantech ventures. The platform operates within a secure, gated environment, ensuring that solution details are visible only to serious buyers—helping innovators get their solutions into the hands of those ready to make a meaningful impact.

    Scaling Canada’s Cleantech Leadership

    By bringing together a network of expert advisors and launching a dedicated platform, Foresight Canada is creating a more efficient, transparent, and scalable pathway for cleantech adoption. This initiative will help public and private sectors identify and integrate high-impact sustainable solutions, while providing innovators with a direct route to commercialization.

    With industry-driven insights and a data-backed approach, the Cleantech Adoption Platform is positioned to:

    • Strengthen Canada’s economic resilience
    • Accelerate emissions reductions
    • Solidify Canada’s leadership in global cleantech deployment.

    Market-Ready Solutions

    Multiple top cleantech solutions have joined the Cleantech Adoption Platform, including:

    Quotes

    “I’m thrilled to see the Cleantech Adoption Platform starting to gain some momentum. Speaking as the CEO and founder of an innovative cleantech company, one of the greatest hurdles to creating adoption is education of the end user that more environmentally friendly, cost-effective solutions do in fact exist, and to get these new technologies specified in procurement contracts. The Cleantech Adoption Platform will address both of these challenges, to not only support the growth of the Canadian economy through a growing cleantech sector, but also allow communities all across Canada to meet their carbon reduction and net zero goals at a much faster pace.” — Todd Burns, CEO, Cypher Environmental

    “The Cleantech Adoption Platform is a game-changer in bridging the gap between innovative climate solutions and real-world implementation. I’m excited to support this initiative in accelerating the adoption of vetted technologies that will help us hasten our journey towards net zero.” — Bofa Udisi, Project Manager, City of Toronto; Founder, AlphaCor Sustainability Solutions

    “The Cleantech Adoption Platform, guided by its Advisory Board, represents a major set of tools and resources with the potential to reshape Canada’s economic landscape. By streamlining access to vetted technologies, we’re helping industries and municipalities reduce costs, improve efficiency, and stay competitive in a low-carbon world. Connecting innovators with serious buyers will drive investment, accelerate commercialization, and strengthen Canada’s overall domestic market.” — Jeanette Jackson, CEO, Foresight Canada

    “We are grateful to the exceptional leaders joining the Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board, whose expertise and insights will be instrumental in breaking down barriers to cleantech adoption. By bringing together industry and municipal experts with deep sector knowledge and real-world implementation experience, this board will help accelerate the deployment of Canada’s top climate solutions, driving meaningful impact where it matters most.” — Joseph Mosca, Senior Program Manager, Cleantech Adoption Platform

    About Foresight Canada

    ​​Foresight Canada helps the world do more with less, sustainably. As Canada’s largest cleantech innovation and adoption accelerator, they connect public and private sectors to the world’s best clean technologies, de-risking and simplifying the adoption of innovative solutions that improve productivity, profitability, and economic competitiveness, all while addressing today’s most urgent climate challenges.

    Contact:
    Heather Kingdon
    Manager, Communications
    hkingdon@foresightcac.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Zero Hash expands stablecoin offerings with addition of Ripple USD (RLUSD)

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Zero Hash, the leading crypto and stablecoin infrastructure platform, today announced it has expanded its stablecoin support by integrating Ripple USD (RLUSD), a new regulated stablecoin issued by Ripple. This integration allows Zero Hash customers to access RLUSD on both the XRP Ledger and Ethereum networks.

    Zero Hash’s API and SDK infrastructure now supports over 65 digital assets, including 5 stablecoins, across multiple chains, reinforcing its position as the comprehensive solution for platforms seeking to design and build new ways to store, exchange and move value globally. RLUSD is now part of Zero Hash’s stablecoin engine, powering leading FinTechs and start ups across:

    • Payments
      • Remittances
      • Payins
      • Payouts
      • Account Funding
      • Tokenization payment rails
      • AI agent payments
    • Trading
      • Swaps
      • Onramp / offramp
      • Custody
      • Deposits and withdrawals
    • Treasury

    “The addition of RLUSD to our ecosystem demonstrates Zero Hash’s commitment to providing our customers with access to the most innovative and regulated stablecoin technologies,” said Edward Woodford, Founder and CEO at Zero Hash. “Zero Hash now offers RLUSD to all partners who can seamlessly embed through our API and SDK. Zero Hash offers the tech stack that powers use cases spanning payouts including Stripe, on-ramping including Shift4 and tokenization payment rails including Franklin Templeton.”

    RLUSD is designed to meet the growing demand for a reliable, compliant stablecoin in the digital asset space. Key features1 of RLUSD include: (i) One-to-one backing with US dollars held in reserve; (ii) issuance by a New York State-regulated trust company; (iii) Monthly reserve attestations by an independent certified public accountant; and, (iv) native issuance on both the XRP Ledger and Ethereum networks.

    1Ripple USD

    About Zero Hash

    Zero Hash is the leading crypto and stablecoin infrastructure provider that seamlessly connects fiat, crypto and stablecoins in one platform, enabling a better way to move and transfer value globally.

    Through its embeddable infrastructure, start-ups, enterprises and Fortune 500 companies build a diverse range of use cases: cross-border payments, commerce, trading, remittance, payroll, tokenization, wallets and on and off-ramps.

    Zero Hash Holdings is backed by investors, including Point72 Ventures, Bain Capital Ventures, and NYCA.

    Zero Hash LLC is a FinCen-registered Money Service Business and a regulated Money Transmitter that can operate in 51 US jurisdictions. Zero Hash LLC and Zero Hash Liquidity Services LLC are licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services. In Canada, Zero Hash LLC is registered as a Money Service Business with FINTRAC.

    Zero Hash Australia Pty Ltd. is registered with AUSTRAC as a Digital Currency Exchange Provider, with DCE registered provider number DCE100804170-001. This registration enables Zero Hash to offer its crypto services in Australia. Zero Hash Australia Pty Ltd. is registered on the New Zealand register of financial service providers, with Financial Service Provider (FSP) number FSP1004503. A FSP in New Zealand is a registration and does not mean that Zero Hash Australia Pty Ltd. is licensed by a New Zealand regulator to provide crypto services. Zero Hash Australia Pty Ltd.’s registration on the New Zealand register of financial service providers does not mean that Zero Hash Australia is subject to active regulation or oversight by a New Zealand regulator. Zero Hash Europe B.V. is registered as a Virtual Asset Services Provider (VASP) registration by the Dutch Central Bank (Relation number: R193684). Zero Hash Europe Sp. Zoo is registered as a VASP by the Tax Administration Chamber of Poland in Katowice (Registration number RDWW – 1212).

    Connect with Zero Hash

    Website | Twitter | LinkedIn | Medium

    Zero Hash Contact
    Shaun O’keeffe
    (855) 744-7333
    media@zerohash.com

    Zero Hash Disclosures

    Zero Hash services and product offerings, including the availability of certain chains/networks for supported stabletoken and crypto assets, may not be available in all jurisdictions. Zero Hash accounts are not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections, or any such equivalent protections that may exist outside of the US. Zero Hash’s technical support and enablement of any asset is not an endorsement of such asset and is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any crypto asset. The value of any cryptocurrency, including digital assets pegged to fiat currency, commodities, or any other asset, may go to zero. Zero Hash is not registered with the SEC or FINRA. Zero Hash does not provide any securities services and is not a custodian of securities, including security tokens, on behalf of customers.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: President and CEO Dana Erickson Announces New Structure to Senior Leadership Team at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    EAGAN, Minn., Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Dana Erickson, president and CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (Blue Cross), has announced a revised structure and a new addition to her senior leadership team. The changes have two established Blue Cross senior team members, Chris Fanning and Carey Smith, taking on expanded responsibilities in their respective fields of market portfolio growth and technology. Additionally, accomplished healthcare leader David Im is joining the organization as Chief Operating Officer.

    “These changes to our senior leadership team build upon Blue Cross’ market-leading strengths while creating new opportunities to grow in ways that will further sharpen our customer focus,” said Erickson. “As an organization, Blue Cross has been a champion of providing affordable and accessible healthcare for more than 90 years. The depth of talent, experience and vision across our leaders have us in a great position to continue our journey to a century of serving Minnesota.”

    Details behind changes to the Blue Cross senior leadership team include the following:

    Chris Fanning, Chief Growth Officer

    Fanning joined Blue Cross in 2020 to lead the company’s portfolio of health plans across commercial market clients based in Minnesota, with members located in all 50 states. Now as Chief Growth Officer, Fanning will lead plans and identify opportunities for additional membership across all lines of business, including innovative health plan company Coupe Health.

    In his expanded role as Chief Growth Officer, Fanning has accountability for client and membership retention, acquisition and financial performance for both commercial and government markets within the state (including Medicare and Medicaid), as well as Minnesota-based membership within the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Federal Employee Plan. His extensive experience in healthcare includes sales and marketing leadership positions at major health insurers based in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan.

    Carey Smith, President of Xcelerate Health

    Smith, who has been a member of the Blue Cross senior leadership team since 2022, will focus on developing and implementing technology products and services as president of a newly established business unit called Xcelerate Health. Currently in the early stages of development, Xcelerate Health will be structured and staffed to drive innovation and enhanced capabilities across the healthcare market. At the same time, Smith will continue to have strategic oversight of Blue Cross’ technology architecture and integration under the title of Chief Technology and Innovation Officer.

    For more than three decades, Smith has built and delivered modernized and proficient IT solutions that drove transformational change at numerous companies across the insurance, financial services, and manufacturing industries. He first worked for Blue Cross from 2012 to 2017 as an information technology (IT) leader.

    David Im, Chief Operating Officer

    David Im is joining Blue Cross as the newest member of Dana Erickson’s senior leadership team. Starting on February 10, Im will be responsible for operational direction and systems oversight of claims, customer service, clinical operations, vendor management, payment integrity, and provider operations.

    Im has more than two decades of strategic and operational leadership experience in healthcare. Prior to joining Blue Cross, he was with Centene Corporation in the role of Corporate Vice President of Business Operations, overseeing enrollment, eligibility, member billing, and fulfillment services for 26 million members. His career path also includes tenures at Integra ServiceConnect, Magellan Health, OptumHealth, and Boston Scientific.

    Im is a graduate of West Point and served 11 years in the U.S. Army and Minnesota National Guard in various leadership positions, attaining the rank of Major. He spent a total of 40 months on operational and training deployments overseas.

    About Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
    For more than 90 years, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (bluecrossmn.com) has supported the health, wellbeing and peace of mind of our members by striving to ensure equitable access to high quality care at an affordable price. Our more than 2.5 million members can be found in every Minnesota county, all 50 states and on four continents. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION:                                                
    Jim McManus | 651.662.2882
    Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
    Jim.McManus@bluecrossmn.com

    The MIL Network –