NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Intelligence Agencies

  • MIL-OSI Security: Wetzel County Man Admits to Child Pornography Charge

    Source: US FBI

    WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA – Robert Lee Lemasters, 61, of Paden City, West Virginia, has admitted to the possession of child pornography.

    According to court documents and police records, law enforcement received a tip that Lemasters had child pornography on his cell phone. A search of Lemasters’ phone uncovered hundreds of images and videos depicting children in sexual situations.

    Lemasters faces up to 20 years in federal prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Conklin is prosecuting the case on behalf of the government.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Probation Office investigated.

    U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone presided.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Lawrence County Woman Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud Targeting Missouri Lottery

    Source: US FBI

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Mt. Vernon, Mo., woman pleaded guilty in federal court today for her role in a wire fraud conspiracy that targeted the Missouri Lottery Commission and an area gas station.

    Amy Young, 42, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count each of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud.

    According to the plea agreement, Young conspired with others to employ a scheme to purchase Missouri lottery tickets using stolen and fraudulent credit cards and credit card numbers at a Joplin, Mo., Phillips 66 Fuel Station.

    Young and her co-conspirators made $62,082.50 in fraudulent transactions at the gas station in July and August of 2022. These transactions included the purchase of Missouri Lottery tickets. The perpetrators would send other individuals to collect any cash prizes associated with the tickets. The group fraudulently claimed $54,248 in cash prizes from the Missouri Lottery Commission. The fraudulent cash prizes and credit card transactions totaled $116,330.50.

    Young’s co-defendant, Larry Duane Green, 56, of Mt. Vernon, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud on April 15, 2024, and is pending sentencing.

    Under federal statutes, Young and Green are subject to sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison without parole and a maximum fine of $250,000 for each count. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Carney. It was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Joplin, Mo., Police Department, and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: $HAREHOLDER ALERT: The M&A Class Action Firm Announces An Investigation of Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN)

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the “M&A Class Action Firm”), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN) related to its merger with Mercantile Bank Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Eastern Michigan common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.32 in cash and 0.7116 shares of Mercantile common stock. Is it a fair deal?

    Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eastern-michigan-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

    NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:

    1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
    2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders?
    3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

    About Monteverde & Associates PC

    Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

    Contact:
    Juan Monteverde, Esq.
    MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
    The Empire State Building
    350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
    New York, NY 10118
    United States of America
    jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
    Tel: (212) 971-1341

    Attorney Advertising. (C) 2025 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com).  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: $HAREHOLDER ALERT: The M&A Class Action Firm Announces An Investigation of Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN)

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the “M&A Class Action Firm”), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN) related to its merger with Mercantile Bank Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Eastern Michigan common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.32 in cash and 0.7116 shares of Mercantile common stock. Is it a fair deal?

    Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eastern-michigan-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

    NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:

    1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
    2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders?
    3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

    About Monteverde & Associates PC

    Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

    Contact:
    Juan Monteverde, Esq.
    MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
    The Empire State Building
    350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
    New York, NY 10118
    United States of America
    jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
    Tel: (212) 971-1341

    Attorney Advertising. (C) 2025 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com).  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Operation Grayskull Culminates in Lengthy Sentences for Managers of Dark Web Site Dedicated to Sexual Abuse of Children

    Source: US State of California

    Operation Grayskull Eradicated Four Dark Web Child Abuse Sites and Led to the Convictions of 18 Offenders to Date, Who Have Collectively Received More than 300 Years in Prison

    Today, the Justice Department announced the results of Operation Grayskull, a highly successful joint effort between the Department of Justice and the FBI that resulted in the dismantling of four dark web sites dedicated to images and videos containing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). To date, the operation has led to the convictions of 18 offenders, including a Minnesota man who was sentenced yesterday to 250 months in prison and lifetime supervised release for his involvement with one of these dark web sites. He was also ordered to pay $23,000 in restitution.

    “Today’s announcement sends a clear warning to those who exploit and abuse children: you will not find safe haven, even on the dark web,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “These offenders thought that they could act without consequences, but they were wrong.  Thanks to the relentless determination of our prosecutors and law enforcement partners we have exposed these perpetrators for who they are, eliminated their websites and brought justice to countless victims.”

    “This operation represents one of the most significant strikes ever made against online child exploitation networks,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “We’ve not only dismantled dangerous platforms on the dark web, but we’ve also brought key perpetrators to justice and delivered a powerful message: you cannot hide behind anonymity to harm children.”

    “Yesterday’s sentencing reaffirms our steadfast commitment to protecting our children, the most vulnerable among us, from those who exploit and harm them through the despicable trade in child sexual abuse material,” said U.S. Attorney Hayden P. O’Byrne for the Southern District of Florida. “Thomas Peter Katsampes and his co-conspirators ran some of the darkweb’s most heinous networks, enabling horrific crimes against innocent victims, but Operation Grayskull has shut these sites down and delivered justice. We applaud the FBI and our international partners for their tireless work, and let this be a clear warning: we will relentlessly pursue and prosecute anyone engaged in such atrocities, no matter how they attempt to cover their tracks.”

    Thomas Peter Katsampes, 52, of Eagan, Minnesota, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise and conspiracy to distribute child pornography on Feb. 27. According to court documents, Katsampes joined a dark web site dedicated to CSAM in 2022, advertised and distributed CSAM over the website, including CSAM depicting prepubescent children, and eventually worked his way up to a staff position on the web site, which, among other things, involved moderating the site, enforcing the site’s rules for posting CSAM, and advising the site’s users about how to post CSAM.

    In addition to Katsampes, eight individuals have been convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of Florida for their involvement in running the primary site targeted by Operation Grayskull.

    Defendant Residence Case Status
    Selwyn David Rosenstein Boynton Beach, Florida

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography, five counts of advertisement of child pornography, and possession of child pornography.

    Sentenced on Dec. 12, 2022, to 28 years in prison and ordered to pay $80,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Matthew Branden Garrell Raleigh, North Carolina

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 1, 2023, to 20 years and 10 months in prison and ordered to pay $158,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Robert Preston Boyles Clarksville, Tennessee

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 15, 2023, to 23 years and four months in prison and ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Gregory Malcolm Good Silver Springs, Nevada

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 22, 2023, to 25 years and 10 months in prison and ordered to pay $93,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    William Michael Spearman Madison, Alabama

    Pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

    Sentenced on Jan. 23, 2024, to life in prison and ordered to pay $123,400 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Joseph Addison Martin Tahuya, Washington

    Pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

    Sentenced on April 18, 2024, to 42 years in prison and ordered to pay $174,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Joseph Robert Stewart Milton, Washington

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on April 18, 2024, to 23 years and 9 months in prison and ordered to pay $19,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Keith David McIntosh Grand Rapids, Michigan

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography, both as a person with a prior conviction for possession of child pornography.

    Sentenced on Dec. 19, 2024, to 55 years in prison.

    The website’s leaders advertised and distributed CSAM, promulgated rules for the website, enforced the rules by banning or scolding users who violated them, held staff meetings, recruited members to serve as staff members, recommended users for promotion, edited and deleted user posts, praised individuals for participating in and contributing to the website, kept records of CSAM posts made by individual members, and paid for and maintained the website servers, among other things.

    Operation Grayskull resulted in the dismantling of a total of four sites dedicated to images and videos depicting child sexual abuse. These websites were some of the most egregious on the dark web, and they included sections specifically dedicated to infants and toddlers, as well as depictions of violence, sadism, and torture. The websites also contained detailed advice on how to avoid detection by law enforcement – for example, by using sophisticated technologies.

    In other judicial districts around the country, nine additional individuals have been convicted for their involvement with these websites, including the following:

    • Charles Hand, of Aberdeen, Maryland, was prosecuted in the District of Maryland and was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison;
    • Michael Ibarra, of Wenatchee, Washington, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Washington and was sentenced to 12 years in prison;
    • Clay Trimble, of Fordyce, Arkansas, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Arkansas and was sentenced to 18 years in prison;
    • David Craig, of Houston, Texas, was prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas and was sentenced to nine years in prison;
    • Robert Rella of Chesapeake, Virginia, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia and was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison;
    • Samuel Hicks, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, was prosecuted in the Northern District of Indiana and was sentenced to 16 years in prison;
    • Richard Smith of Dallas, Texas, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Texas and was sentenced to 14 years in prison;
    • Patrick Harrison, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, was prosecuted in the Western District of Michigan and was sentenced to five years and ten months in prison.
    • Thomas Gailus, of Webbers Falls, Oklahoma, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and his sentencing is pending.

    Two other individuals in the United States died before being charged for their involvement with the websites. The operation also resulted in arrests in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Estonia, Belgium, and South Africa.

    The FBI’s Child Exploitation Operational Unit and Miami Field Office, West Palm Beach Resident Agency investigated the cases.

    Acting Deputy Chief Kyle P. Reynolds and Trial Attorney William G. Clayman of the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Schiller of the Southern District of Florida coordinated the operation and prosecuted the defendants in the Southern District of Florida.

    Substantial assistance for the cases prosected in the Southern District of Florida was provided by FBI Field Offices and Resident Agencies in Huntsville, Alabama; Reno, Nevada; Clarksville, Tennessee; Raleigh, North Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; Tacoma, Washington; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Minneapolis, Minnesota; CEOS’s High Technology Investigative Unit; and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Alabama, District of Nevada, Middle District of Tennessee, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western District of Wisconsin, Western District of Washington, Western District of Michigan, and District of Minnesota.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Operation Grayskull Culminates in Lengthy Sentences for Managers of Dark Web Site Dedicated to Sexual Abuse of Children

    Source: United States Department of Justice

    Operation Grayskull Eradicated Four Dark Web Child Abuse Sites and Led to the Convictions of 18 Offenders to Date, Who Have Collectively Received More than 300 Years in Prison

    Today, the Justice Department announced the results of Operation Grayskull, a highly successful joint effort between the Department of Justice and the FBI that resulted in the dismantling of four dark web sites dedicated to images and videos containing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). To date, the operation has led to the convictions of 18 offenders, including a Minnesota man who was sentenced yesterday to 250 months in prison and lifetime supervised release for his involvement with one of these dark web sites. He was also ordered to pay $23,000 in restitution.

    “Today’s announcement sends a clear warning to those who exploit and abuse children: you will not find safe haven, even on the dark web,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “These offenders thought that they could act without consequences, but they were wrong.  Thanks to the relentless determination of our prosecutors and law enforcement partners we have exposed these perpetrators for who they are, eliminated their websites and brought justice to countless victims.”

    “This operation represents one of the most significant strikes ever made against online child exploitation networks,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “We’ve not only dismantled dangerous platforms on the dark web, but we’ve also brought key perpetrators to justice and delivered a powerful message: you cannot hide behind anonymity to harm children.”

    “Yesterday’s sentencing reaffirms our steadfast commitment to protecting our children, the most vulnerable among us, from those who exploit and harm them through the despicable trade in child sexual abuse material,” said U.S. Attorney Hayden P. O’Byrne for the Southern District of Florida. “Thomas Peter Katsampes and his co-conspirators ran some of the darkweb’s most heinous networks, enabling horrific crimes against innocent victims, but Operation Grayskull has shut these sites down and delivered justice. We applaud the FBI and our international partners for their tireless work, and let this be a clear warning: we will relentlessly pursue and prosecute anyone engaged in such atrocities, no matter how they attempt to cover their tracks.”

    Thomas Peter Katsampes, 52, of Eagan, Minnesota, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise and conspiracy to distribute child pornography on Feb. 27. According to court documents, Katsampes joined a dark web site dedicated to CSAM in 2022, advertised and distributed CSAM over the website, including CSAM depicting prepubescent children, and eventually worked his way up to a staff position on the web site, which, among other things, involved moderating the site, enforcing the site’s rules for posting CSAM, and advising the site’s users about how to post CSAM.

    In addition to Katsampes, eight individuals have been convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of Florida for their involvement in running the primary site targeted by Operation Grayskull.

    Defendant Residence Case Status
    Selwyn David Rosenstein Boynton Beach, Florida

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography, five counts of advertisement of child pornography, and possession of child pornography.

    Sentenced on Dec. 12, 2022, to 28 years in prison and ordered to pay $80,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Matthew Branden Garrell Raleigh, North Carolina

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 1, 2023, to 20 years and 10 months in prison and ordered to pay $158,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Robert Preston Boyles Clarksville, Tennessee

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 15, 2023, to 23 years and four months in prison and ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Gregory Malcolm Good Silver Springs, Nevada

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on Aug. 22, 2023, to 25 years and 10 months in prison and ordered to pay $93,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    William Michael Spearman Madison, Alabama

    Pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

    Sentenced on Jan. 23, 2024, to life in prison and ordered to pay $123,400 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Joseph Addison Martin Tahuya, Washington

    Pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

    Sentenced on April 18, 2024, to 42 years in prison and ordered to pay $174,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Joseph Robert Stewart Milton, Washington

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography.

    Sentenced on April 18, 2024, to 23 years and 9 months in prison and ordered to pay $19,500 in restitution to victims of his offense.

    Keith David McIntosh Grand Rapids, Michigan

    Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography and conspiracy to distribute child pornography, both as a person with a prior conviction for possession of child pornography.

    Sentenced on Dec. 19, 2024, to 55 years in prison.

    The website’s leaders advertised and distributed CSAM, promulgated rules for the website, enforced the rules by banning or scolding users who violated them, held staff meetings, recruited members to serve as staff members, recommended users for promotion, edited and deleted user posts, praised individuals for participating in and contributing to the website, kept records of CSAM posts made by individual members, and paid for and maintained the website servers, among other things.

    Operation Grayskull resulted in the dismantling of a total of four sites dedicated to images and videos depicting child sexual abuse. These websites were some of the most egregious on the dark web, and they included sections specifically dedicated to infants and toddlers, as well as depictions of violence, sadism, and torture. The websites also contained detailed advice on how to avoid detection by law enforcement – for example, by using sophisticated technologies.

    In other judicial districts around the country, nine additional individuals have been convicted for their involvement with these websites, including the following:

    • Charles Hand, of Aberdeen, Maryland, was prosecuted in the District of Maryland and was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison;
    • Michael Ibarra, of Wenatchee, Washington, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Washington and was sentenced to 12 years in prison;
    • Clay Trimble, of Fordyce, Arkansas, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Arkansas and was sentenced to 18 years in prison;
    • David Craig, of Houston, Texas, was prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas and was sentenced to nine years in prison;
    • Robert Rella of Chesapeake, Virginia, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia and was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison;
    • Samuel Hicks, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, was prosecuted in the Northern District of Indiana and was sentenced to 16 years in prison;
    • Richard Smith of Dallas, Texas, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Texas and was sentenced to 14 years in prison;
    • Patrick Harrison, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, was prosecuted in the Western District of Michigan and was sentenced to five years and ten months in prison.
    • Thomas Gailus, of Webbers Falls, Oklahoma, was prosecuted in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and his sentencing is pending.

    Two other individuals in the United States died before being charged for their involvement with the websites. The operation also resulted in arrests in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Estonia, Belgium, and South Africa.

    The FBI’s Child Exploitation Operational Unit and Miami Field Office, West Palm Beach Resident Agency investigated the cases.

    Acting Deputy Chief Kyle P. Reynolds and Trial Attorney William G. Clayman of the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Schiller of the Southern District of Florida coordinated the operation and prosecuted the defendants in the Southern District of Florida.

    Substantial assistance for the cases prosected in the Southern District of Florida was provided by FBI Field Offices and Resident Agencies in Huntsville, Alabama; Reno, Nevada; Clarksville, Tennessee; Raleigh, North Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; Tacoma, Washington; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Minneapolis, Minnesota; CEOS’s High Technology Investigative Unit; and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Alabama, District of Nevada, Middle District of Tennessee, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western District of Wisconsin, Western District of Washington, Western District of Michigan, and District of Minnesota.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Career Offender Sentenced to 14 Years in Federal Prison for Drug Trafficking

    Source: US FBI

    PROVIDENCE – The leader of a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy who began trafficking kilogram quantities of powder cocaine and various quantities of crack cocaine and fentanyl within three months of completing a term of incarceration in state prison for drug trafficking was sentenced today to fourteen years in federal prison, announced Acting United States Attorney Sara Miron Bloom.

    William Mendez, 51, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy to a term of incarceration of 168 months to be followed by five years of supervised release. In October 2024, Mendez pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl. His conduct included distributing cocaine base, powder cocaine and approximately 769.5 grams of fentanyl to a government agent.

    In September 2021, Mendez and more than a dozen other individuals were charged in federal court with having had a role in a drug trafficking conspiracy that he led. Like Mendez, many of the defendants had previously been convicted of violent crime offenses such as firearm, robbery, assault, assault with intent to commit murder, and domestic violence charges.

    Court records reflect that prior to his arrest in this matter in September 2021, William Mendez had served a total of twenty-two plus years in prison related to three separate serious felony drug convictions and two separate violent felony assault convictions; when arrested he was serving a term of state probation, having been released from Rhode Island state prison less than three months prior after completing a term of incarceration of nearly seven years.

    The FBI Safe Street Task Force, DEA, and Providence Police Narcotics Bureau joint investigation targeted all levels of drug dealing in several communities.

    Federal court records reflect the following:

    • Ramon Barriera, 53, Providence, pled guilty on October 23, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on June 18, 2025, to 70 months of incarceration and four years of supervised release.
    • Rafael Cruz, 75, of Providence, pled guilty on January 3, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on May 29, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Nelson Hazin, 57, of Providence, pled guilty on October 30, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on April 14, 2025, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Ricardo Martinez, Jr., 37, of Providence, pled guilty on October 16, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on June 6, 2025, to 78 months of incarceration to be followed by five years of supervised release.
    • Jonathan Masa-Gonzalez, 24, of Providence, pled guilty on June 5, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on March 18, 2025, to 60 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Juan Betancourt Sosa, 29, of New Bedford, pled guilty on October 16, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on April 14, 2025, to70 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Victor Yandel Aponte-Cirano, 25, of Taunton, pled guilty on September 6, 2023, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on January 22, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Keven Restrepo, 33, of Providence pled guilty on December 12, 2022, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and was sentenced on April 27, 2023, to 77 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Juan Gonzalez, 47, of Providence, pled guilty on January 25, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on July 16, 2024, to 72 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Charles Sims, 60, of Providence, pled guilty on November 20, 2023, to a charge of  conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on September 25, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Anthony Lacoste, 33, Woonsocket, pled guilty on October 29, 2024, to a charge conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 22, 2025.
    • Karla Rivera-Rosa, 34, of Taunton, pled guilty on October 29, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and is awaiting sentencing on a date yet to be set by the court.
    • Felix Robles, 63, of Providence, is awaiting trial on a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

    Law enforcement agents seized approximately $78,000 in drug proceeds from Mendez at the time of his arrest.

    The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey A. Erickson and Taylor A. Dean, with the assistance of Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christine D. Lowell and Sandra R. Hebert.

    Acting United Sates Attorney Blooms thanks the FBI, DEA, and Providence Police Department for leading this investigation; the United States Postal Inspection Service for their invaluable assistance throughout the investigation; and the United States Marshals Service, Rhode Island State Police, Cranston, Central Falls, Fall River, North Smithfield, Pawtucket, Portsmouth, Warwick, West Warwick, and Woonsocket Police Departments for their assistance with the arrests of the defendants and the execution of search warrants.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Career Offender Sentenced to 14 Years in Federal Prison for Drug Trafficking

    Source: US FBI

    PROVIDENCE – The leader of a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy who began trafficking kilogram quantities of powder cocaine and various quantities of crack cocaine and fentanyl within three months of completing a term of incarceration in state prison for drug trafficking was sentenced today to fourteen years in federal prison, announced Acting United States Attorney Sara Miron Bloom.

    William Mendez, 51, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy to a term of incarceration of 168 months to be followed by five years of supervised release. In October 2024, Mendez pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl. His conduct included distributing cocaine base, powder cocaine and approximately 769.5 grams of fentanyl to a government agent.

    In September 2021, Mendez and more than a dozen other individuals were charged in federal court with having had a role in a drug trafficking conspiracy that he led. Like Mendez, many of the defendants had previously been convicted of violent crime offenses such as firearm, robbery, assault, assault with intent to commit murder, and domestic violence charges.

    Court records reflect that prior to his arrest in this matter in September 2021, William Mendez had served a total of twenty-two plus years in prison related to three separate serious felony drug convictions and two separate violent felony assault convictions; when arrested he was serving a term of state probation, having been released from Rhode Island state prison less than three months prior after completing a term of incarceration of nearly seven years.

    The FBI Safe Street Task Force, DEA, and Providence Police Narcotics Bureau joint investigation targeted all levels of drug dealing in several communities.

    Federal court records reflect the following:

    • Ramon Barriera, 53, Providence, pled guilty on October 23, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on June 18, 2025, to 70 months of incarceration and four years of supervised release.
    • Rafael Cruz, 75, of Providence, pled guilty on January 3, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on May 29, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Nelson Hazin, 57, of Providence, pled guilty on October 30, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on April 14, 2025, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Ricardo Martinez, Jr., 37, of Providence, pled guilty on October 16, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on June 6, 2025, to 78 months of incarceration to be followed by five years of supervised release.
    • Jonathan Masa-Gonzalez, 24, of Providence, pled guilty on June 5, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on March 18, 2025, to 60 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Juan Betancourt Sosa, 29, of New Bedford, pled guilty on October 16, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced on April 14, 2025, to70 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Victor Yandel Aponte-Cirano, 25, of Taunton, pled guilty on September 6, 2023, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on January 22, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Keven Restrepo, 33, of Providence pled guilty on December 12, 2022, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and was sentenced on April 27, 2023, to 77 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Juan Gonzalez, 47, of Providence, pled guilty on January 25, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on July 16, 2024, to 72 months of incarceration to be followed by four years of supervised release.
    • Charles Sims, 60, of Providence, pled guilty on November 20, 2023, to a charge of  conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced on September 25, 2024, to time served and three years of supervised release.
    • Anthony Lacoste, 33, Woonsocket, pled guilty on October 29, 2024, to a charge conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 22, 2025.
    • Karla Rivera-Rosa, 34, of Taunton, pled guilty on October 29, 2024, to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and is awaiting sentencing on a date yet to be set by the court.
    • Felix Robles, 63, of Providence, is awaiting trial on a charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

    Law enforcement agents seized approximately $78,000 in drug proceeds from Mendez at the time of his arrest.

    The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey A. Erickson and Taylor A. Dean, with the assistance of Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christine D. Lowell and Sandra R. Hebert.

    Acting United Sates Attorney Blooms thanks the FBI, DEA, and Providence Police Department for leading this investigation; the United States Postal Inspection Service for their invaluable assistance throughout the investigation; and the United States Marshals Service, Rhode Island State Police, Cranston, Central Falls, Fall River, North Smithfield, Pawtucket, Portsmouth, Warwick, West Warwick, and Woonsocket Police Departments for their assistance with the arrests of the defendants and the execution of search warrants.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Mankato Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Abusive Sexual Contact

    Source: US FBI

    PIERRE – United States Attorney Alison J. Ramsdell announced today that Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange, U.S. District Court, has sentenced a Mankato, Minnesota, man convicted of Abusive Sexual Contact. The sentencing took place on June 30, 2025.

    Ethan Schnitker, 41, was sentenced to two years in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund.

    Schnitker was indicted by a federal grand jury in May 2023. He pleaded guilty on March 13, 2025.

    The conviction stems from an incident that occurred on October 3, 2021, in Gregory County, South Dakota, on property located within the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation. Schnitker had sexual contact with a minor victim without her permission while they were visiting the area. Schnitker was responsible for the minor’s care at the time.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psc.

    This case was investigated by the FBI and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement Services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Wayne Venhuizen prosecuted the case.

    Schnitker was immediately remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Mankato Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Abusive Sexual Contact

    Source: US FBI

    PIERRE – United States Attorney Alison J. Ramsdell announced today that Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange, U.S. District Court, has sentenced a Mankato, Minnesota, man convicted of Abusive Sexual Contact. The sentencing took place on June 30, 2025.

    Ethan Schnitker, 41, was sentenced to two years in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund.

    Schnitker was indicted by a federal grand jury in May 2023. He pleaded guilty on March 13, 2025.

    The conviction stems from an incident that occurred on October 3, 2021, in Gregory County, South Dakota, on property located within the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation. Schnitker had sexual contact with a minor victim without her permission while they were visiting the area. Schnitker was responsible for the minor’s care at the time.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psc.

    This case was investigated by the FBI and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement Services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Wayne Venhuizen prosecuted the case.

    Schnitker was immediately remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Little Eagle Man Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison for Killing Hunka Brother Within the Standing Rock Reservation

    Source: US FBI

    ABERDEEN – United States Attorney Alison J. Ramsdell announced today that U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann has sentenced a Little Eagle, South Dakota, man convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter. The sentencing took place on July 15, 2025.

    Evan John Bobtail Bear, age 35, was sentenced to five years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund.

    Bobtail Bear was indicted by a federal grand jury in September 2025. He pleaded guilty on February 12, 2025.

    On May 14, 2024, Bobtail Bear argued with his brother at a gathering outside a home in Little Eagle, South Dakota, which lies within the Standing Rock Reservation. Bobtail Bear punched his brother in the head. Bobtail Bear’s brother, unconscious, keeled over and struck his head on a concrete driveway. When Bobtail Bear saw his brother was seriously injured, he pleaded with him to wake up. He never did, succumbing to his injuries on June 8, 2024, in a hospital in Bismarck, North Dakota.

    This matter was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office because the Major Crimes Act, a federal statute, mandates that certain violent crimes alleged to have occurred in Indian country be prosecuted in federal court as opposed to State court.

    This case was investigated by the FBI and the Bureau of Indian Affairs – Office of Justice Services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Carl Thunem prosecuted the case.

    Bobtail Bear was immediately remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Arizona Drug Trafficker Sentenced to Over Seven Years in Prison

    Source: US FBI

    RICHMOND, Va. – An Arizona man was sentenced on July 15 to seven years and six months in prison after pleading guilty to distribution of methamphetamine and distribution of pills containing parafluorofentanyl and fentanyl.

    According to court documents, three controlled buys were conducted in February and March 2022, Matthew Stuart Powlowsky, 35, sold meth and counterfeit Oxycodone pills containing fentanyl and parafluorofentanyl, which he shipped by mail from Arizona to Virginia. In all, the Powlowsky sold 86.48 grams of meth, which forensic analysis showed was 95% pure.

    Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Stephen Farina, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, made the announcement after sentencing by Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela Mastandrea prosecuted the case.

    A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 3:22-cr-151.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Allies enhance NATO’s digital posture

    Source: NATO

    Brussels, 23 July 2025 – Twelve NATO Allies¹ have committed to develop and roll out a new digital network by 2030 through NATO’s Allied Software for Cloud and Edge Services (ACE) High Visibility Project (HVP). ACE will enable personnel in the field to create, distribute and store classified information securely.

    The initiative will provide participating Allies with a common digital service and improve interoperability in operations through more efficient data sharing. It will also support data-driven decision-making by leveraging advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning.

    Initial funding for ACE will be up to 45 million euros with participating Allies expected to allocate additional resources for specific tasks. The NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA) will lead the execution of the project on behalf of the participating Allies. 
     
    ACE will serve as the foundation for a scalable, software-driven approach to defence capabilities making the development and delivery of mission-critical applications and services faster and more secure. This in turn will enhance NATO’s ability to respond swiftly to evolving operational demands, ensuring digital systems remain responsive, updated and ready for use.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Pittsburgh Felon Pleads Guilty to Drug Trafficking and Firearm Charges

    Source: US FBI

    PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty in federal court to possession with the intent to distribute quantities of fentanyl and cocaine and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.

    Ronell Cathie, 31, pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Marilyn J. Horan on July 16, 2025.

    In connection with the guilty plea, the Court was advised that, between March 2024 and July 2024, Cathie participated in a conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine, both Schedule II controlled substances. Additionally, on July 19, 2024, during the execution of a search warrant at Cathie’s residence, law enforcement recovered a stolen firearm, a magazine, and ammunition. Cathie has multiple prior felony convictions for firearms. Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon.

    Judge Horan scheduled sentencing for November 12, 2025. The law provides for a total sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $1 million, or both. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed is based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history of the defendant.

    Pending sentencing, Cathie will remain in custody.

    Assistant United States Attorneys Katherine C. Jordan and Kelly M. Locher are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation that led to the prosecution of Cathie.

    This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Elizabeth Man Indicted for Making Antisemitic Threat to Injure Local Public Official and Making False Statements to FBI

    Source: US FBI

    PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of making a threat to injure a local public official and making false statements to government agents, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.

    The two-count Indictment named Edward Arthur Owens Jr., 29, as the sole defendant.

    According to the Indictment and an earlier federal criminal complaint (read the news release regarding the complaint here), on or about May 20, 2025, Owens knowingly and willfully transmitted via a social media messaging app the following threat to injure a local public official: “We’re coming for you [emoji of person raising right hand] [German flag emoji] be afraid. Go back to Israel or better yet, exterminate yourself and save us the trouble. 109 countries for a reason. We will not stop until your kind is nonexistent.” The complaint explains that the reference to “109 countries,” according to the Anti-Defamation League, is an antisemitic assertion that Jews have been expelled from 109 different countries; it is used by antisemites to call for the expulsion of Jews from other countries and otherwise to promote hatred. The recipient of the message is a local official who regularly engages with the public.

    The Indictment further alleges that, on or about May 30, 2025, Owens made false statements to special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, telling the agents that his firearms—which included a .22 LR caliber rifle, an AR-15 style rifle, and a 9mm caliber Smith & Wesson pistol—were all in the custody of his mother, that he did not know where the firearms were, and that he did not have access to any of them. According to the Indictment, Edwards did, in fact, know that his 9mm caliber Smith & Wesson pistol was still in his custody and control (located inside of the vehicle Edwards drove immediately prior to making his false statements to the FBI agents), that he still had access to this pistol, and that the pistol was not in his mother’s custody.

    Owens remains in custody after being ordered detained by the Court at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office following the defendant’s arrest. The law provides for a maximum total sentence of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.

    Assistant United States Attorney Carl J. Spindler is prosecuting this case on behalf of the government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation leading to the Indictment.

    An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: ETH and BTC Earning Made Easier: ETHRANSACTION Launches Newbie-Friendly Crypto Access Guide for 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Kansas City, Missouri, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ETHRANSACTION is a leading platform in the cryptocurrency space. In this industry, generating new digital assets and confirming transactions are core functions. The two most popular currencies involved in such operations are usually Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). ETHRANSACTION operates as a mobile-first crypto earning platform founded in 2017. Today, the company announced the launch of its BTC and ETH earning system optimized for 2025, giving new users direct access to simplified crypto participation without hardware or setup costs. The update makes ETHRANSACTION one of the few mobile platforms that enables real-time BTC and ETH income generation through AI optimization and renewable energy.

    ETHRANSACTION’s Approach to Ethereum (ETH) Rewards:
    Ethereum’s early reliance on the Proof of Work (PoW) protocol demanded high-performance computing to solve complex problems and validate transactions. After shifting to Proof of Stake (PoS), Ethereum’s energy consumption dropped significantly, allowing participants to earn rewards by simply staking ETH.
    Despite this transition, some platforms, including ETHRANSACTION, continue to offer ETH-based earning potential by utilizing off-chain infrastructure and data center solutions that replicate the original operational environment.

    ETHRANSACTION’s Approach to Bitcoin (BTC) Rewards:
    Bitcoin still uses the Proof of Work (PoW) protocol, which typically requires powerful, energy-intensive hardware. While earning BTC remains profitable, individual efforts often face challenges due to equipment and electricity costs.
    Many users are turning to platforms like ETHRANSACTION, which let users access computing resources remotely, removing the need for personal hardware or ongoing maintenance.

    What is ETHRANSACTION?
    Launched in 2017, ETHRANSACTION is a mobile-based platform that enables users to earn from cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin, Ripple, and USDT, all from a smartphone. No costly setup is necessary. Just sign up, activate a contract with a free trial bonus, and begin earning rewards. ETHRANSACTION blends AI technology with solar-powered infrastructure to make crypto participation accessible to everyone.

    Key Features of the ETHRANSACTION 2025 Platform

    • No upfront investment – New users receive a $19 sign-up bonus.
    • Mobile-optimized experience – All features are accessible directly through the app.
    • Multi-currency support – Earn rewards in BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE, and USDT all in one place.
    • AI-driven performance optimization – The system intelligently allocates resources to the most rewarding opportunities.
    • Eco-friendly infrastructure – All facilities are powered by renewable energy sources.
    • Flexible earning contracts – Choose between 2 to 60-day plans, with daily payouts and reinvestment options.

    Why ETHRANSACTION is a Practical Alternative to Traditional Crypto Earning Methods
    Traditional approaches often require:

    • High electricity usage
    • Expensive, specialized hardware
    •  Advanced technical skills

    ETHRANSACTION removes these barriers through:

    • Fully automated, app-based earning
    • Sustainable operations powered by green energy
    • Daily returns without technical involvement

    Plus, you can test the platform through a free trial before continuing. ETHRANSACTION opens the door to digital asset income for everyone — from newcomers to seasoned investors seeking passive returns.

    GET STARTED WITH ETHRANSACTION
    First:

    1. Register at ethransaction.vip or download the ETHRANSACTION app.
    2. Instantly receive your $19 bonus.
    3. Select a reward plan.
    4. Start earning daily rewards from BTC, ETH, and more.
      No experience or equipment required.

    Wrapping Up
    Earning from crypto is no longer costly or complicated. With platforms like ETHRANSACTION, anyone can:

    • Start generating returns from Bitcoin and Ethereum
    • Begin immediately with a $19 bonus
    • Receive daily rewards straight to their phone

    Whether you’re commuting, working, or just exploring crypto, ETHRANSACTION makes earning passive income easier than ever.
    Ready? Sign up for ETHRANSACTION today and claim your free bonus!

    About ETHRANSACTION
    Founded in 2017, ETHRANSACTION operates one of the world’s largest mobile-based crypto earning platforms. By merging AI-driven optimization with ESG-compliant energy practices, ETHRANSACTION simplifies the way users interact with digital assets in a mobile-friendly format accessible worldwide.

    Website: https://ethransaction.vip
    App Download: Available on iOS and Android
    Business Inquiries: info@ethransaction.vip

    Attachment

    • ETHRANSACTION

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Congress has a chequered history of overseeing US intelligence and national security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Luca Trenta, Associate Professor in International Relations, Swansea University

    Tonya Ugoretz, a top FBI intelligence analyst, was placed on administrative leave in June. The FBI has not said why. But the decision came around the time she refused to endorse what was reportedly a thinly sourced report accusing China of interfering in the 2020 US presidential election in favour of Joe Biden.

    At the Bureau, loyalty tests and polygraph checks have also allegedly become routine as part of a crackdown on news leaks. When approached by the New York Times about the matter, the FBI declined to comment and cited “personnel matters and internal deliberations”.

    The situation does not seem to be much different at the CIA. In May, agency director John Ratcliffe ordered a review of the intelligence community’s earlier conclusion that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump. The conclusion, Ratcliffe contends, was unwarranted and imposed by political pressure – a claim that has been rejected by one of the report’s leading authors.

    The intelligence community has reportedly also been under pressure to substantiate Trump’s claims that the recent military strikes on Iran had obliterated its nuclear sites. This is despite mixed evidence regarding the extent of their success. These examples suggest a growing politicisation of intelligence and national security in the US.

    Researchers and observers have highlighted the detrimental effect of this process. When intelligence is conducted by ideologues that are screened for loyalty, it often becomes more about pleasing the leader than collecting accurate information and preventing failure.

    Less attention has been paid to the permissive attitude of Congress. Many Republicans in Congress have taken an unquestioning attitude toward the claims made by the president and other officials, allowing intelligence agencies to pursue Trump’s agenda unimpeded.

    While Trump and Patel’s focus on personal loyalty when it comes to intelligence is new, partisan influence in congressional oversight is not. In fact, Congress has a long history of supporting the intelligence priorities of the governing administration.

    For much of the cold war, Congress was not involved – and did not want to be involved – in matters of intelligence. This view was expressed by former CIA legal counsel, Walter Pforzheimer, during an interview in 1988. Reflecting on the early days of oversight, he stated: “It wasn’t that we were attempting to hide anything. Our main problem was we couldn’t get them [Congress] to sit still and listen.”

    This quote isn’t entirely true. In research from 2023, I showed that Congress was more involved than was generally believed. The US-backed 1954 coup in Guatemala, which deposed the democratically elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, is a case in point. Leading members of Congress were “in the know” and others pushed Dwight Eisenhower’s administration to be even more aggressive.

    But Congress took on a more active role in intelligence matters in the 1970s. Following a series of public revelations about the CIA’s behaviour, a select committee was established in 1975 and exposed abuses by intelligence agencies including the surveillance of US citizens, experiments with drugs and involvement in assassinations.

    In the wake of this, Congress established intelligence committees with oversight duties. The idea was that the CIA would present a document signed by the president to notify congressional committees of its intentions.

    However, the system ran into trouble in the 1980s, and partisanship and politicisation were part of the story. The Ronald Reagan administration’s support for the “contra” rebels in Nicaragua made intelligence a matter of severe partisan conflict.

    Removing Nicaragua’s government

    When Reagan took office in 1981, one of the primary foreign policy priorities for his administration was removing the Sandinista National Liberation Front from power in Nicaragua. The administration saw the Sandinistas as a threat to the region and – in Reagan’s black-and-white thinking – as puppets of Communist Moscow and Havana.

    The administration sought to convince Congress that its aims were limited. The aim, or so CIA director William Casey told the intelligence committees, was to obstruct the transfer of weapons from Nicaragua to neighbouring El Salvador. Another left-wing guerrilla movement, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front, was threatening the US-supported government there.

    Initially, the policy received bipartisan support in Congress. The linchpin of this policy was the creation of an insurgent group in Nicaragua called the contras (contrarevolucionarios). It was made up of members of the previous regime’s brutal national guard, as well as other groups that had become disgruntled with the Sandinistas.

    Nicaraguan contras, who fought against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua during the 1980s.
    Tiomono / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    News stories soon made clear that the size of the contra army had radically expanded, from the 500 members discussed by Casey in his initial briefing to thousands. The contras’ stated goal of overthrowing the Sandinistas, which they ultimately failed to do, also contradicted the earlier Reagan administration’s statements to Congress.

    Democrats in Congress pushed the leadership of intelligence committees to curtail the administration’s activities. Edward Boland, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, penned and helped to pass two amendments. The first prohibited any US government support for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government.

    When the administration found loopholes to circumvent this, Boland’s second amendment prohibited any US funds from being spent in support of the contras. This amendment is generally understood as a first step towards the so-called Iran-Contra scandal.

    The Reagan administration illegally funded the contras behind Congress’s back by using the proceeds from secret arms sales to Iran – a state the US had been at loggerheads with since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    The Boland amendments also helped make an intelligence and covert operations issue a matter of public debate and – more importantly – congressional votes. Republicans in Congress abandoned their oversight duties and followed the administration’s guidelines.

    Votes on contra aid became an opportunity for partisan controversy, vitriolic attacks, accusations of betrayal and large-scale influence campaigns. Instead of oversight, a deep partisan divide materialised.

    Counting on Congress? Think again

    The role of Congress is to conduct oversight. It is the role of the governing administration to keep Congress informed of intelligence matters, particularly covert operations. History shows this has often been hard to achieve.

    Congress has been complacent, complicit and often too willing to follow the government’s lead. In some cases, Congress has acted but primarily in the aftermath of major scandals or media revelations. This is called “firefighting” behaviour.

    But “firefighters” seem to now be in short supply. As much as domestic constraints on Trump’s power are decreasing, the same is happening in the context of intelligence and foreign policy.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Luca Trenta received funding from British Academy Grant SRG21211237.

    – ref. Congress has a chequered history of overseeing US intelligence and national security – https://theconversation.com/congress-has-a-chequered-history-of-overseeing-us-intelligence-and-national-security-261120

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Crypto Analysts Say Bitcoin Swift Is Like Catching Bitcoin Before the First Halving

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LUXEMBOURG, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In 2012, Bitcoin traded under $15, and mining was accessible to anyone with a decent CPU. Fast forward to today, and that window has long closed. But according to crypto analysts, Bitcoin Swift (BTC3) may be the closest modern-day equivalent. With its programmable Proof-of-Yield mining, live AI governance, and a fully functioning smart contract ecosystem, BTC3 is giving investors and developers a second shot at what early Bitcoin once offered: active participation, long-term upside, and immediate earnings.

    The Bitcoin Swift presale launched on July 14 and is gaining momentum fast. Stage 1 offers a $1.00 entry price, with the next stage rising to $2.00 and a $15.00 launch price. Stage 1 APY is 143%, with rewards issued at the end of each presale stage through smart contracts. With only 62 days total, Bitcoin Swift is delivering early access and real utility from day one. You can learn more through Bitcoin Swift.

    A Presale That Pays and Evolves at the Same Time

    Bitcoin Swift doesn’t just sell tokens. It activates programmable mining from day one. Each presale stage ends with a distribution of mining rewards based on the network’s adaptive Proof-of-Yield model. That model tracks real-time usage, carbon efficiency, and validator contributions, then adjusts emissions accordingly.

    AI oracles collect these metrics and feed them directly into the protocol. This enables the network to automatically reward clean energy miners and penalize inefficient activity. Rewards are executed through automated smart contracts, making payouts transparent, trackable, and resistant to manipulation. The reward logic is backed by verified audits including Spywolf and Solidproof, both of which confirm the accuracy and security of BTC3’s programmable systems.

    Bitcoin Swift emphasized investor confidence by completing KYC identity verification, reinforcing its commitment to transparent and ethical practices.

    Dual-Engine Architecture That Locks Down Security

    BTC3 is built on a hybrid consensus model. It combines Proof-of-Work mining with Proof-of-Stake validation. While miners generate SHA-256 blocks, validators finalize checkpoints every 100 blocks, locking in the state of the chain and executing governance decisions.

    This structure provides the brute force security of PoW and the adaptive scalability of PoS. Validators handle DID verification, oracle approvals, and policy enforcement, while miners maintain the network’s operational integrity.

    These operations run on a WASM-compatible smart contract engine embedded with AI agents. Unlike static code, these agents evolve based on user interaction, governance inputs, and environmental data. That makes BTC3 one of the only chains with autonomous contract behavior that adjusts itself based on system health.

    BTC3’s AI oracles support everything from miner reputation scoring to validator uptime and risk modeling. Combined with zk-SNARK layers for private transactions and verifiable credentials, Bitcoin Swift delivers a blend of utility, compliance, and privacy that most first-generation chains never achieved.

    Reputation-Based Governance That Resists Exploitation

    Bitcoin Swift’s governance system avoids the classic failure of one-token-one-vote. Instead, every proposal passes through an AI pre-screening engine and is then subjected to a quadratic voting model. Votes are weighted not just by holdings but by DID reputation scores.

    These scores measure user behavior over time, giving influence to those who contribute meaningfully. Proposal logic, reward parameters, emission schedules, and validator actions are all under this decentralized voting model. Even emergency powers are handled through an on-chain council that prevents gridlock or malicious capture.

    The system evolves through self-regulation. As the Telegram group grows and more users begin to participate in proposals, reputation scores shift. Governance becomes a tool of the many, not the few. And the protocol’s long-term viability grows with each new update voted on and finalized.

    Bitcoin Swift continues to attract attention from the crypto space, with more influencers recognizing its potential. A detailed breakdown from Crypto Nitro highlights why this project is earning serious praise.

    A Roadmap That’s Already Rolling

    Bitcoin Swift is delivering on its roadmap with speed and precision, not distant promises. Every phase adds real functionality while keeping the network’s reward system active. BTC3 continues to evolve while users earn, creating a cycle of growth and participation.

    Key milestones on Bitcoin Swift’s timeline:

    • Q3 2025: Launch of AI smart contract engine and reinforcement learning
    • Q2 2026: Deployment of zk-ledger privacy, shielded DeFi, and zkLogin for Web3 authentication
    • Q4 2026: Migration to native mainnet with a 1:1 trustless bridge from Solana
    • Integration of institutional audit systems and BTC3 stablecoin
    • AI governance simulators to model and test proposals before voting
    • Continuous Proof-of-Yield mining rewards throughout every phase

    Final Verdict

    Crypto veterans often ask, “What would you do if you could go back to 2012?” Bitcoin Swift offers a modern answer. It’s not just a cheap token. It’s a live ecosystem with AI at its core, programmable mining that pays instantly, and governance that evolves intelligently. With just 64 days in the presale and a working protocol already underway, BTC3 is the kind of opportunity people talk about for years. This time, you don’t have to watch from the sidelines.

    For more information on Bitcoin Swift:
    Website: https://bitcoinswift.com

    Contact:
    Luc Schaus
    support@bitcoinswift.com

    Disclaimer: This content is provided by Bitcoin Swift. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article.This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

    Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

    Photos accompanying this announcement are available at: 

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/91083ef5-eabc-4c20-aede-8c0ac08aab38

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/16a8f08a-213b-4a5b-9d59-4ceedf7f3b47

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/20b6a748-3261-460b-b11b-90f7370c6844

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: California man gets maximum sentence for laundering proceeds from email fraud scheme

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    HOUSTON – A San Fernando, California, man has been ordered to federal prison for operating an illegal money transmitting business, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Victor Rubio Jr. 28, pleaded guilty Feb. 6.

    U.S. District Judge George Hanks has now ordered Rubio to serve the maximum 60 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. At the hearing, the court considered additional evidence about other frauds Rubio committed while on bond in imposing the sentencing, assessing extra points for obstruction of justice. In handing down the sentence, Judge Hanks noted Rubio had committed obstruction after writing his letter to the judge asking for leniency and apologizing for his first crime. 

    Rubio admitted that from 2021 to 2022, he operated an unlicensed money transmitting business that received and transmitted funds from a business email compromise (BEC) scheme. Rubio ran the unlicensed money transmitting business by using shell companies that existed only on paper.

    As part of the plea, Rubio acknowledged opening and maintaining bank accounts to collect money from at least two victims in a BEC scheme, including a healthcare liability insurance company headquartered in Georgia and a township in New Jersey. Then, for a fee, he transmitted the fraud proceeds to co-conspirators.

    In response to fraudulent wire instructions from spoofed email accounts, victims sent interstate wire transfers for payment to Rubio instead of to the true creditors to whom the victims owed money.

    More than 45 people in multiple states, including Rubio and seven others in the Southern District of Texas, have been charged in separate business email compromise schemes that affected numerous victims.

    Previously released on bond, Rubio was taken into custody where he will remain pending transfer to a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

    The FBI – Bryan Resident Agency and IRS Criminal Investigation conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Belinda Beek is prosecuting the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: New York Man Charged For Making And Attempting To Use Improvised Explosive Devices In Manhattan

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton; Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia; and Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), Jessica S. Tisch, announced today charges against MICHAEL GANN alleging that he manufactured at least seven improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”) using precursor chemicals—chemicals that can be combined to create an explosive mixture—that he had ordered on the internet, stored at least five IEDs and shotgun shells on adjoining rooftops of residential apartment buildings in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan, threw at least one IED onto the subway tracks of the Williamsburg Bridge, and subsequently lied to law enforcement about having disposed of his explosives and supplies in a dumpster.  This case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho.

    “The safety of New Yorkers is paramount,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.  “As alleged, Michael Gann built explosive devices, stored them on a rooftop in SoHo, and threw one onto the subway tracks—putting countless lives at risk.  Thanks to swift work by our law enforcement partners, no one was harmed.  That vigilance assuredly prevented a tragedy in New York.”

    “Michael Gann allegedly produced multiple improvised explosive devices intended for use in Manhattan,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia.  “Due to the successful partnership of law enforcement agencies in New York, Gann was swiftly brought to justice before he could harm innocent civilians shortly after his dangerous actions became known.  The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is enduring in its commitment and determination to protect the homeland.”

    “This defendant allegedly stockpiled homemade explosives and traveled to New York City with these deadly devices,” said NYPD Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch.  “He threw one of these devices onto an active subway track and stored others on the rooftop of a residential building, but because of the skilled investigative work and swift response from the NYPD and our partners, we were able to intervene before he caused any harm.  I am grateful to the members of the NYPD, FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for all the work they do every day to keep New Yorkers safe.”

    As alleged in the Complaint, Indictment, and public court filings:[1]

    In or about May 2025, GANN ordered approximately two pounds of potassium perchlorate and approximately one pound of aluminum powder—precursor chemicals—online, along with over 200 cardboard tubes and over 50-feet worth of fuses.  In or about early June 2025, GANN received his packages containing the precursor chemicals and other supplies, mixed the precursor chemicals together, applied a flame to the mixture, and caused an explosion.  GANN subsequently assembled at least seven IEDs using the precursor chemicals, cardboard tubes, and fuses.

    GANN stored the precursor chemicals and at least five IEDs, pictured below, on the rooftops of residential apartment buildings in SoHo.  The pictured black device contained approximately 30 grams of explosive powder—approximately 600 times the legal limit for consumer fireworks.

    GANN also stored at least four shotgun shells on the same rooftops, which he intended to combine with one or more of the IEDs.

    GANN threw a sixth IED onto the subway tracks on the Williamsburg Bridge, as pictured below.

    On or about June 5, 2025, law enforcement agents arrested GANN in SoHo, incident to which they recovered a seventh IED from GANN’s person.  Following GANN’s arrest, GANN falsely told law enforcement, in substance and in part, that he had disposed of the precursor chemicals and the shotgun shells in a dumpster in Manhattan.

    In or about May and June 2025, GANN conducted internet searches related to explosives and firearms, including: “will i pass a background check,” “gun background check test,” “can i buy a gun in any state without ffl [federal firearms license],” “3D gun printing,” “gun stores,” “clorine bomb,” “how to make flash powder from household items,” “what to mix with potassium perchlorate to make flash powder,” “alluminum powder,” “black powder nearby,” “quarter stick m1000 firecracker,” “1/2 stick dynamite,” and “rechargeable nail gun to shoot into steal.”

    On or about June 5, 2025, just hours before GANN was arrested with an IED on his person, GANN posted to Instagram, “Who wants me to go out to play like no tomorrow?”

    *               *                *

    GANN, 55, of Inwood, New York, is charged with one count of attempted destruction of property by means of explosives, which carries a mandatory minimum of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of transportation of explosive materials, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; and one count of unlawful possession of destructive devices, which also carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    The minimum and maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.

    Mr. Clayton praised the outstanding efforts of the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI, which consists of investigators and analysts from the FBI, NYPD, and over 50 other federal, state, and local agencies; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Nassau County Police Department; and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

    This case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and International Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan L. Bodansky, Michael D. Lockard, and Chelsea L. Scism, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Isaacson, are in charge of the prosecution.


    [1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the charging instruments and other public filings to date constitute only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: DRUG TRAFFICKER SENTENCED TO 120 MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT FOR ROLE IN DRUG TRAFFICKING GANG

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    St. Thomas, VI – Acting United States Attorney Adam F. Sleeper announced today that on
    Tuesday, July 22, 2025, Kai James, 37, of St. Croix, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and six years
    of supervised release by District Judge Mark A. Kearney. He pleaded guilty on January 23, 2025, to
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana for his role in a drug trafficking
    conspiracy led by James and his brother, Ivan James. Other members in the James gang, Ivan James,
    Joh Williams, Malachi Benjamin, Ariel Petersen, Jahkiebo Joseph, Tillisa Ceaser, and Luis Ortiz, Jr.,
    all of St. Croix, were previously sentenced by Judge Kearney for their roles in the drug trafficking
    conspiracy.
    According to court documents and evidence introduced at the trial of Ivan James and Joh
    Williams and other hearings, the investigation into the James drug trafficking organization began in
    January 2013 after Bureau of Corrections officers at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility seized
    an iPhone from then-inmate Joh Williams. A search of the cell phone seized from Williams revealed
    text messages related to smuggling and distribution of controlled substances in the prison. Thereafter,
    Drug Enforcement Administration obtained authorization to intercept calls from a second cell phone
    used by Williams while incarcerated. The wire investigation revealed evidence of distribution of
    controlled substances within the facility by Williams, supplied by Ivan James. The investigation
    further revealed that Vivian Ford, a former corrections officer, was a member of James’ organization
    who smuggled narcotics into Golden Grove in food containers for distribution by Williams.
    Members of the gang who worked at the Henry Rohlsen Airport in St. Croix used their
    secured access to smuggle multiple kilograms of cocaine per week onboard commercial aircrafts
    destined for the continental United States. Testimony revealed that Ivan and Kai James recruited
    couriers to deliver bricks of cocaine as passengers on board commercial flights. As a
    manager/supervisor in the drug trafficking gang, Kai James used as many as 10 couriers to travel to
    New York, North Carolina, and Florida with 2 to 3 kilograms of cocaine per trip in this broad and
    brazen drug trafficking operation.
    In addition, a search warrant was executed on the family home of Ivan and Kai James. Law
    enforcement recovered marijuana, cocaine, and marijuana cultivation equipment. In a field adjacent
    to the property, agents seized over 1,000 marijuana plants.
    A federal jury found Ivan James guilty on drug conspiracy, possession of 1,000 marijuana
    plants, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug conspiracy and possession of firearms resulting
    in the death of Levar Pogson. On his conviction, Judge Kearney sentenced James to 420 months of
    imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Joh Williams was also found guilty on
    the drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment, followed by seven
    years of supervised release. Ariel Petersen and Jahkiebo Joseph pleaded guilty to possession of
    firearms in furtherance of a drug conspiracy and importation of firearms. Petersen was sentenced to
    93 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and Joseph was sentenced
    to 68 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Malachi Benjamin
    pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug conspiracy and was sentenced to 72
    months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Tillisa Ceaser and Luis Ortiz,
    Jr. both pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy. Ceaser was sentenced to 62 months of imprisonment, and
    Ortiz was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment.
    “Due to the tremendous work of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security
    Investigations, Customs and Border Patrol, the Virgin Islands Police Department and the Bureau of
    Corrections, the members of this drug trafficking organization have received just and lengthy
    sentences for their involvement in these crimes,” said Acting United States Attorney Adam Sleeper.
    “This sentence sends a clear message, and it is credited to the extensive collaboration between
    federal and local law enforcement partners. Our joint efforts are essential in the U.S. Virgin Islands
    towards combatting drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and the myriads of other illicit activities of
    transnational criminal organizations in our area of responsibility,” said Homeland Security
    Investigations Special Agent in Charge Rebecca Gonzalez-Ramos.
    “The guilty plea of Kai James represents a decisive blow against the violent narcotics
    conspiracy that plagued the people of St. Croix for far too long,” stated DEA Caribbean Division
    Special Agent in Charge Michael A. Miranda. “This case underscores the unwavering commitment
    of the DEA and our law enforcement partners to dismantle criminal organizations that threaten the
    safety and well-being of our communities. We are proud to have worked alongside the USAO, HSI,
    FBI, CBP, and ATF to bring justice to those impacted by these crimes. Let this serve as a clear
    message: we will not relent in our fight to protect the Caribbean from the scourge of drug trafficking
    and violence.”
    This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)
    investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money
    launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a
    prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal,
    state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
    This case was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security
    Investigations, Customs and Border Patrol, Virgin Islands Police Department and the Bureau of
    Corrections. It was prosecuted by former United States Attorney Delia Smith, Acting Assistant United
    States Attorney Adam Sleeper, and lead OCDETF attorney Kyle Payne.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Endeavor Bancorp Reports Net Income of $1.1 Million for the Second Quarter of 2025; Highlighted by Continued Loan and Deposit Growth, and NIM Expansion

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN DIEGO, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Endeavor Bancorp (OTCQX: EDVR) (the “Company” or “Bancorp”), the holding company for Endeavor Bank (the “Bank”), today reported net income of $1.07 million, or $0.25 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $1.36 million, or $0.32 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025, and $760,000, or $0.18 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2024. All financial results are unaudited.

    “Our second quarter results reflect the strength of our core banking franchise and the disciplined execution of our strategic growth plan,” said Julie Glance, CFO. “We continued to grow loans and deposits during the quarter while maintaining a strong net interest margin, demonstrating the resilience of our business model in an uncertain interest rate environment. Our strategic investments in talent and infrastructure are starting to deliver measurable returns, enhancing both operational efficiency and client service. As we look ahead, we remain focused on driving sustainable, profitable growth and creating long-term value for our shareholders.”

    Results for the second quarter of 2025 included a $746,000 provision for credit losses, reflecting continued prudent credit risk management amid a growing loan portfolio. This compared to a $385,000 provision for credit losses in the first quarter of 2025, and a $451,000 provision for credit losses in the second quarter of 2024. Excluding taxes and loan loss provisions, pretax, pre-provision net income was $2.28 million, consistent with the prior quarter’s $2.33 million, and up from $1.55 million in the second quarter of 2024.

    Income Statement 

    Strong first quarter earnings were driven by loan growth and earning asset rates. Total interest income on loans and bank deposits and investments was $11.6 million, an increase of $504,000 compared to the preceding quarter, while total interest expenses increased $128,000 during the same timeframe. Net interest income was $7.4 million in the second quarter of 2025, which was an increase of $376,000, or 5.4% compared to the preceding quarter and a 37.8% increase compared to the second quarter of 2024.

    “Our net interest margin expanded by nine basis points in the second quarter of 2025 compared to the prior quarter, driven primarily by strong loan growth and continued improvement in our funding costs,” said Dan Yates, CEO. “This positive trend reflects not only solid execution on the asset side of the balance sheet but also disciplined management of our deposit base in a competitive rate environment. We remain proactive in optimizing our asset-liability mix to safeguard and enhance margin performance, while maintaining prudent risk management and offering attractive pricing to our clients. As interest rate dynamics evolve, we are confident in our ability to navigate the environment effectively, positioning us to sustain earnings momentum.”

    The Company’s net interest margin increased nine basis points to 4.21% in the second quarter of 2025 compared to 4.12% in the first quarter of 2025 and increased 51 basis points compared to 3.70% in the second quarter of 2024. The yield on total earning assets remained strong, increasing 10 basis points during the second quarter of 2025 to 6.62%, compared to 6.52% in the preceding quarter, and up from 6.33% in the second quarter of 2024. The cost of deposits decreased to 2.57% in the second quarter, compared to 2.58% in the first quarter of 2025, and down from 2.84% in the second quarter of 2024.

    Non-Interest income was $276,000 in the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $93,000 or 50.5% compared to the first quarter of 2025, and a decrease compared to $390,000 in the second quarter of 2024.

    Non-Interest expense was $5.4 million in the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $521,000 compared to the first quarter of 2025, and an increase of $1.2 million compared to the second quarter of 2024. Included in non-interest expense during the second quarter of 2025 was $263,000 in annual board compensation. In the prior year annual board compensation of $312,000 was paid during the first quarter of 2024. The higher expenses year-over-year were also due to strategic investment in staff. “In 2024, we made strategic investments in talent, increasing our headcount by over 30%. These additions are now delivering strong returns, with revenue growth fueled by our enhanced capabilities more than offsetting the associated rise in expenses year-over-year. Our improved efficiency ratio, which declined to 70.3% during the second quarter of 2025 from 75.8% during the second quarter of 2024, further demonstrates that the team we built last year is now fully ramped and highly productive. With fewer new hires planned for the remainder of the year, we remain focused on maximizing the impact of our expanded workforce and are well positioned to drive continued earnings growth,” said Yates.

    The Company’s annualized return on average equity for the second quarter of 2025 was 8.75%, compared to 11.68% in the first quarter of 2025 and 6.96% in the second quarter of 2024. The annualized return on average assets for the second quarter of 2025 was 0.60% compared to 0.79% in the first quarter of 2025 and 0.52% in the second quarter of 2024. The decrease compared to the prior quarter was primarily due to the previously mentioned board expense along with one-time consulting expense associated with contract renegotiation during the second quarter of 2025.

    Balance Sheet 

    Total assets increased by $42.3 million, or 6.0%, during the second quarter of 2025 to $746.9 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $704.6 million at March 31, 2025, and increased $153.1 million, or 25.8%, compared to June 30, 2024. Balance sheet liquidity remains strong with cash balances of $87.4 million, which represents 11.7% of total assets as of June 30, 2025. The Company’s investment securities increased $1.7 million during the second quarter of 2025 to $28.1 million as of June 30, 2025, representing 3.8% of total assets. Total available borrowing capacity through the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve discount window totaled $245.3 million as of quarter end.

    “We are pleased with the continued progress in our deposit-gathering and lending efforts, which reflects the strength of our client relationships and the effectiveness of our strategy,” said Steve Sefton, President. “Our team remains focused on delivering tailored financial solutions to our business clients, while maintaining disciplined underwriting and sound risk management. As we continue to deepen these relationships, we are well positioned to drive sustainable growth and long-term value.”

    Total loans outstanding increased $28.1 million, or 4.7%, during the second quarter of 2025 to $625.9 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $597.8 million three months earlier, and increased $142.5 million, or 29.5%, when compared to $483.4 million a year earlier. Total non-performing loans decreased to 0.32% of the total loan portfolio as of June 30, 2025, compared to 0.40% as of March 31, 2025. The Company had $421,000 in net charge-offs during the second quarter of 2025, which included one loan that had previously been reserved for. This compared to zero in net charge-offs during the preceding quarter and the year ago quarter.

    Total deposits increased $41.2 million, or 6.6%, during the quarter to $667.4 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $626.2 million three months earlier, and increased $149.2 million, up 28.8% when compared to $518.2 million a year earlier. The loan to deposit ratio was 93.8% at June 30, 2025, compared to 95.5% at March 31, 2025, and 92.9% as of June 30, 2024. “We are strategically managing our balance sheet with a target loan to deposit ratio of 95% as we aim for the right balance between strong lending activity and liquidity,” added Sefton.

    As a result of its participation in reciprocal deposit placement networks, the Bank accepted “reciprocal” deposits from other institutions, enabling the Bank to offer customers FDIC insurance on accounts in excess of the typical $250,000 FDIC insurance limit. Although the reciprocal deposits maintained through the network are core deposits seeking FDIC insurance, the FDIC rules indicate that reciprocal deposits aggregating over 20% of total liabilities are classified as deposits obtained by or through a deposit broker. The total reciprocal deposits reported as brokered deposits were $133.3 million at June 30, 2025, and $102.5 million as of March 31, 2025. To support strong loan growth, the Company is utilizing a conservative amount of wholesale deposits. As of June 30, 2025, total wholesale deposits, excluding the reciprocal deposits, was $56.8 million, representing 8.5% of total deposits compared to $55.7 million, or 8.9% of total deposits as of March 31, 2025.

    Shareholders’ equity was $48.9 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $47.7 million at March 31, 2025, and $44.1 million at June 30, 2024. Tangible book value per share increased to $13.64 at June 30, 2025, compared to $13.49 three months earlier and $12.55 a year earlier.

    Capital 
    The Bank’s Tier 1 leverage ratio was 10.60% as of June 30, 2025, compared to 10.57% at March 31, 2025. The Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 10.20% as of June 30, 2025, compared to 10.47% on March 31, 2025, and the Total risk-based capital ratio was 11.37% compared to 11.65% three months earlier, all of which were well above regulatory minimums.

    About Endeavor Bancorp 

    Endeavor Bancorp, the holding company for Endeavor Bank, is primarily owned and operated by Southern Californians for Southern California businesses and their owners. The bank’s focus is local: local decision-making, local board, local founders, local owners, and relationships with local clients in Southern California.

    Headquartered in downtown San Diego in the Symphony Towers building, the Bank also operates a loan production and executive administration office in Carlsbad, as well as a branch office in La Mesa. In addition, the Bank maintains production teams throughout Southern California. Endeavor Bank provides traditional business banking services across a broad spectrum of industries and specialties. Unique to the bank is its consultative banking approach that partners our business clients with Endeavor Bank’s senior management. Together, we build strategies and provide resources that solve problems, plan for the future, and help clients’ efforts to grow revenues and profits. Endeavor Bancorp trades on the OTCQX® Best Market under the symbol “EDVR.” Visit www.endeavor.bank for more information.

    Endeavor Bank is rated by Bauer Financial as Five-Star “Superior” for strong financial performance, the top rating given by the independent bank rating firm. DepositAccounts.com awarded Endeavor Bank an A rating.

    EDVR Shareholders 

    With many of our shareholders transferring their EDVR shares to their brokerage companies, along with ongoing trading taking place, Bancorp may not have the most current shareholder contact information. If you are an EDVR shareholder and would like to receive information via a more timely method, please complete the Shareholder Communication Preference Form on our website: https://www.bankendeavor.com/investor-relations so we can keep you updated on EDVR news, and invite you to various shareholder networking events throughout the year. 

    Forward-Looking Statements 

    This press release includes “forward-looking statements,” as such term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs of the Company’s directors and executive officers (collectively, “Management”), as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company’s Management. All statements regarding the Company’s business strategy and plans and objectives of Management of the Company for future operations, are forward-looking statements. When used in this press release, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect” and “intend” and words or phrases of similar meaning, as they relate to the Company or the Company’s Management, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company’s expectations (“cautionary statements”) are loan losses, rapid and unanticipated deposit withdrawals, unavailability of sources of liquidity, additional regulatory requirements that may be imposed on community banks or banks generally, changes in interest rates, loss of key personnel, lower lending limits and capital than competitors, regulatory restrictions and oversight of the Company, the secure and effective implementation of technology, risks related to the local and national economy, the effect on customers, collateral value and property insurance markets of the recent wildfires in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and similar events in the future, changes in real estate values, the Company’s implementation of its business plans and management of growth, loan performance, interest rates, and regulatory matters, the effects of trade, monetary and fiscal policies, inflation, and changes in accounting policies and practices. Based upon changing conditions, if any one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if any underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described as anticipated, believed, estimated, expected, or intended. The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking statements.

    SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA        
    (In thousands of dollars, except for ratios and per share amounts)    
    Unaudited        
             
        June 30, 2025 March 31, 2025 June 30, 2024
        (Consolidated) (Consolidated) (Consolidated)
    SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS        
    Interest income   $ 11,623   $ 11,119   $ 9,203  
    Interest expense     4,234     4,106     3,840  
    Net interest income     7,389     7,013     5,363  
    Provision for credit losses     746     385     451  
    Net interest income after loss provision     6,643     6,628     4,912  
    Non-interest income     276     183     390  
    Non-interest expense     5,385     4,864     4,205  
    Income before tax     1,533     1,947     1,097  
    Federal income tax expense     294     372     215  
    State income tax expense     172     214     121  
    Net income   $ 1,067   $ 1,361   $ 760  
             
    Core pretax earnings*   $ 2,279   $ 2,332   $ 1,548  
    *excludes taxes and provision for loan losses        
             
    PER COMMON SHARE DATA        
    Number of shares outstanding (000s)*     3,586     3,503     3,493  
    *Adjusted for May 2024 Stock Dividend        
    Earnings per share, basic   $ 0.30   $ 0.39   $ 0.22  
    Earnings per share, diluted   $ 0.25   $ 0.32   $ 0.18  
    Book Value per share   $ 13.64   $ 13.61   $ 12.61  
             
    BALANCE SHEET DATA        
    Assets   $ 746,907   $ 704,564   $ 593,803  
    Investments securities     28,117     26,385     18,204  
    Total loans, net of unearned income     625,912     597,846     483,411  
    Total deposits     667,408     626,165     518,230  
    Borrowings     26,746     26,721     26,648  
    Shareholders’ equity     48,905     47,667     44,051  
    Loan to Deposit ratio     93.78 %   95.48 %   93.28 %
    Wholesale Deposits to Total Deposits     8.50 %   8.90 %   0.00 %
             
    AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET DATA        
    Average assets   $ 712,281   $ 697,617   $ 590,625  
    Average total loans, net of unearned income     611,480     589,037     461,476  
    Average total deposits     632,477     618,844     515,457  
    Average shareholders’ equity     48,909     47,256     43,825  
             
    ASSET QUALITY RATIOS        
    Net (charge-offs) recoveries   $ 421   $ –   $ –  
    Net (charge-offs) recoveries to average loans     0.28 %   0.00 %   0.00 %
    Non-performing loans as a % of loans     0.32 %   0.40 %   0.06 %
    Non-performing assets as a % of assets     0.27 %   0.34 %   0.05 %
    Allowance for loan losses as a % of total loans     1.36 %   1.36 %   1.42 %
    Non-performing assets as a % of allowance for loan losses   23.37 %   29.60 %   22.94 %
             
    FINANCIAL RATIOSSTATISTICS        
    Annualized return on average equity     8.75 %   11.68 %   6.96 %
    Annualized return on average assets     0.60 %   0.79 %   0.52 %
    Net interest margin     4.21 %   4.12 %   3.70 %
    Efficiency ratio     70.27 %   67.59 %   75.75 %
             
    CAPITAL RATIOS        
    Tier 1 leverage ratio — Bank   10.60 %   10.57 %   11.70 %
    Common equity tier 1 ratio — Bank     10.20 %   10.47 %   11.84 %
    Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio — Bank   10.20 %   10.47 %   11.84 %
    Total risk-based capital ratio –Bank   11.37 %   11.65 %   13.04 %
             
    TCE/TA *     6.55 %   6.77 %   7.42 %
    Tangible Book Value per Share   $ 13.64   $ 13.49   $ 12.55  
             
    *Non-GAAP financial measure.        
    Unaudited financials 2025        

    Endeavor Bancorp Contact Information:  
    (858) 230.5185  
    Dan Yates, CEO  
    dyates@bankendeavor.com

    (858) 230.4243  
    Steve Sefton, President  
    ssefton@bankendeavor.com  

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: FFB Bancorp Announces Second Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    FRESNO, Calif., July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FFB Bancorp (the “Company”) (OTCQX: FFBB), the parent company of FFB Bank (the “Bank”), today reported net income of $6.04 million, or $1.94 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $8.08 million, or $2.54 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2024, and $8.10 million, or $2.55 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025.

    For the six months ended June 30, 2025, net income was $14.13 million, or $4.50 per diluted share, compared to $15.87 million, or $4.99 per diluted share, for the same period in 2024. All results are unaudited.

    Second Quarter 2025 Summary: As of, or for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to the quarter ended June 30, 2024:

    • Operating revenue (net interest income, before the provision for credit losses, plus non-interest income) increased 11% to $27.35 million.
    • Pre-tax, pre-provision income increased 1% to $11.58 million.
    • Net income decreased 25% to $6.04 million.
    • Return on average equity (“ROAE”) was 13.75%.
    • Return on average assets (“ROAA”) was 1.59%.
    • Net interest margin contracted 22 basis points to 5.09% from 5.31%.
    • Total assets increased 2% to $1.47 billion.
    • Total portfolio of loans increased 13% to $1.09 billion.
    • Total deposits increased 6% to $1.23 billion.
    • Shareholder equity increased 17% to $173.91 million.
    • Book value per common share increased 22% to $56.87.
    • The Company’s tangible common equity ratio was 11.80%, while the Bank’s regulatory leverage capital ratio was 14.41%, and the total risk-based capital ratio was 20.61% at June 30, 2025.

    “During the quarter FFB Bank was recognized as #1 in American Banker’s top-performing public banks with under $2B in assets and #34 in S&P Global’s 100 best-performing US community banks of 2024, for bank’s under $3B in assets,” said Steve Miller, President & CEO. “This recognition is a testament to the consistent success we’ve enjoyed, and a reminder of the results we expect and continue to strive toward. As we navigate the challenges this year has brought, we’re proud to build upon our history of success.”

    “During the quarter we have made continued and timely progress on the matters outlined in our consent order, although ultimate compliance will be determined by our regulators. We are confident we can continue to address these items going forward. Although the added resource allocation to properly address the order will have near-term impacts to our performance, we feel that building a best in-class compliance and risk frame-work will enable the bank to drive results over the long-term.”

    Update on Stock Repurchase Program:

    On January 22, 2025, the Company announced that it had authorized a plan to utilize up to $15.0 million of capital to repurchase shares of the Company’s common stock. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has repurchased 133,021 shares, at an average price of $76.79, totaling $10.22 million. This represents approximately 5.33% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025. During the second quarter of 2025 the Company repurchased 91,106 shares, at an average price of $74.58, totaling $6.79 million. These purchases represent approximately 3.54% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025.

    Under the terms of the repurchase plan, the Company may repurchase shares of the Company’s common stock from time to time, through December 31, 2025, in open market purchases or privately negotiated transactions. Repurchases under the plan may also be made pursuant to a trading plan under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which would permit shares to be repurchased by the Company when the Company might otherwise be precluded from doing so because of self-imposed trading blackout periods or other regulatory restrictions. The timing, manner, price and exact amount of any repurchases by the Company will be determined at the Company’s discretion and depend on various factors including the performance of the Company’s stock price, general market and economic conditions, applicable legal and regulatory requirements, availability of funds, and other relevant factors. Through December 31, 2025, the repurchase plan may be discontinued, suspended or restarted at any time.

    Results of Operations

    Quarter ended June 30, 2025:

    Operating revenue, consisting of net interest income before the provision for credit losses and non-interest income, increased 11% to $27.35 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $24.73 million for the second quarter a year ago, and decreased 4% from $28.48 million for the first quarter of 2025.

    Net interest income, before the provision for credit losses, increased 5% to $18.11 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $17.31 million for the same quarter a year ago, and decreased 4% to $18.90 million from last quarter. “Net interest income has benefited from strong loan portfolio growth, partially offset by higher funding costs,” said Bhavneet Gill, Chief Financial Officer. “We have been able to capitalize on a higher yielding loan portfolio, but that yield was impacted by a $261,000 interest reversal as loans, totaling $11.86 million, were placed on non-accrual during the quarter.”

    The Company’s net interest margin (“NIM”) decreased by 22 basis points to 5.09% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 5.31% for the second quarter of 2024, and decreased 26 basis points from 5.35% for the preceding quarter. “The decrease in NIM is primarily the result of an increase in deposit and borrowing interest expense, and the decrease in investment interest income. During the quarter, average non-interest bearing deposits decreased $37.67 million. The resulting shift in the deposit portfolio saw the cost of deposits increase 13 basis points,” noted Gill. “During the second quarter of 2025 we sold $48.05 million in investment securities to generate liquidity ahead of anticipated deposit outflows due to ISO partner exits. That transaction was the driver of the decrease in investment interest income in the current quarter and will result in lower investment income in future quarters.”

    The yield on earning assets was 6.18% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 6.40% for the second quarter a year ago, and 6.31% for the previous quarter. The cost to fund earning assets increased to 1.09% for the second quarter of 2025 compared to 0.96% for the previous quarter, and 1.10% for the same quarter a year earlier. This increase is the result of an increase in brokered deposits and overnight borrowings during the quarter due to ISO deposit outflow that occurred in early June.

    Total non-interest income was $9.24 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $7.42 million for the second quarter of 2024, and $9.58 million for the previous quarter. The increase in non-interest income, from the second quarter of 2024, was driven by more gain on the sale of loans, higher merchant services revenue, and a reduction in loss on sale of investments. The quarter-over-quarter decrease in non-interest income was attributed to a decrease in merchant services revenue, partially offset by more gain on the sale of loans.

    Merchant services revenue increased 9% to $6.61 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $6.07 million from the second quarter of 2024. The increase over prior year was primarily related to higher volume across ISO partner sponsorship lines and higher gross revenue related to FFB Payments. Merchant services revenue decreased from $7.86 million when compared to the first quarter of 2025 as a result of seasonality and the loss of a significant FFB Payments direct merchant.

    During the first and second quarters of 2025, ISO Partner Sponsorship volumes included $2.78 billion and $2.56 billion in volume, respectively, for the ISO partners that were exited in the second quarter of 2025. Additionally, the first and second quarters of 2025 included ISO Partner Sponsorship revenues of $990,000 and $1.09 million, respectively, from the ISO partners that were exited in the second quarter of 2025. “These ISO exits were driven by our efforts to comply with the Consent Order and designed to ensure best in class oversight. We anticipate replacing this volume and revenue through growth in FFB Payments and with our remaining ISO partners as we move forward,” said Miller.

    Merchant ISO Processing Volumes(in thousands)
    Source   Q2 2025 Q1 2025 Q4 2024 Q3 2024 Q2 2024
    ISO Partner Sponsorship   $ 5,347,695   $ 5,007,998   $ 4,891,643   $ 4,556,868   $ 4,391,365  
    FFB Payments – Sub-ISO Merchants     20,766     21,551     22,950     24,661     24,414  
    FFB Payments – Direct Merchants     71,746     97,095     91,133     64,512     76,059  
    Total volume   $ 5,440,207   $ 5,126,644   $ 5,005,726   $ 4,646,041   $ 4,491,838  
    Merchant ISO Processing Revenues(in thousands)
    Source of Revenue   Q2 2025 Q1 2025 Q4 2024 Q3 2024 Q2 2024
    Net Revenue*:            
    ISO Partner Sponsorship   $ 2,654   $ 2,410   $ 2,535   $ 2,284   $ 2,156  
                 
    Gross Revenue:            
    FFB Payments – Sub-ISO Merchants     727     745     764     810     795  
    FFB Payments – Direct Merchants     3,228     4,709     4,262     2,476     3,117  
          3,955     5,454     5,026     3,286     3,912  
    Gross Expense:            
    FFB Payments – Sub-ISO Merchants     708     616     638     723     675  
    FFB Payments – Direct Merchants     2,179     2,558     2,511     1,766     1,989  
          2,887     3,174     3,149     2,489     2,664  
    Net Revenue:            
    FFB Payments – Sub-ISO Merchants     19     129     126     87     120  
    FFB Payments – Direct Merchants     1,049     2,151     1,751     710     1,128  
    FFB Payments Net Revenue     1,068     2,280     1,877     797     1,248  
    Net Merchant Services Income:   $ 3,722   $ 4,690   $ 4,412   $ 3,081   $ 3,404  
    *ISO Partnership Sponsorship is recognized net of expense in Merchant Services Income. FFB Payments revenues are recognized gross in Merchant Services Income and Merchant Services expenses are recognized in Non-Interest Expense.

    Total deposit fee income increased 1% to $854,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $847,000 for the second quarter of 2024, and increased 1% from $849,000 for the previous quarter.

    There was a $1.45 million gain on the sale of loans during the second quarter of 2025, compared to a gain on the sale of loans of $509,000 during the second quarter 2024, and a gain on the sale of loans of $261,000 in the previous quarter. There was a $243,000 loss on the sale of investments during the second quarter of 2025, compared to a $459,000 loss recorded during the second quarter of 2024, and no loss recorded in the previous quarter. The gain on the sale of loans was the result of $16.95 million in SBA loans sold and a $31.77 million RE-multifamily loan sale package that was completed during the quarter. These sales contributed $968,000 and $482,000 in gain respectively.

    Non-interest expense increased 19% to $15.77 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $13.29 million for the second quarter 2024, and decreased 4% from $16.47 million from the previous quarter. The increase on a year-over-year comparison was driven by increases in salaries and employee benefits expense, and increases in other operating expense, primarily data and software related expenses and professional fees. Compared to the first quarter of 2025 the decrease in non-interest expense was attributed to a decrease in merchant services operating expenses, marketing expense, director fess, and operational losses.

    Salaries and employee benefits increased 19% to $8.00 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $6.72 million for the second quarter 2024. The increase year-over-year was primarily the result of expense associated with the increase in full-time employees. Full-time employees increased to 181 at June 30, 2025, compared to 147 full-time employees a year earlier, and 175 full-time employees from the previous quarter. Total salaries and employee benefits decreased 1% from $8.06 million in the previous quarter. The decrease when compared to the first quarter of 2025 is the result of a decrease in payroll tax expense and increased loan originations, partially offset by higher salary expense from additional full-time employees. Compensation related direct costs associated with loan originations offset salary and employee benefits expense upon loan origination.

    Occupancy and equipment expenses decreased 19% from a year ago, representing 2% of non-interest expense, and remained consistent with the preceding quarter. Merchant operating expense totaled $2.89 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $2.66 million for the second quarter of 2024 and $3.17 million for the previous quarter. The change in merchant operating expense is attributed to fluctuations in volume and revenue for the FFB Payments lines of business. Merchant operating expenses include interchange fees, chargebacks, partnership fees, and other card brand fees.

    Other operating expense increased 31% or $1.07 million to $4.53 million from a year earlier and decreased 7% or $357,000 from the previous quarter. The year-over-year increase was driven by increases of $458,000 in data and software related expense, $327,000 in professional fees, $136,000 in regulatory assessment expense, and $127,000 in marketing expense. The increase in data and software expense and professional fees, which include legal, audit, and consulting fees, are primarily due to actions taken to enhance the Company’s AML/CFT, compliance, and merchant services programs.

    The efficiency ratio was 57.15% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 52.74% for the same quarter a year ago, and 57.83% for the preceding quarter. The efficiency ratio can fluctuate period-over-period based on changes in merchant services’ gross revenues and associated expenses. The Company also calculates an adjusted efficiency ratio where the merchant services’ gross expense, which is included in non-interest expense, is netted against merchant services’ revenue in non-interest income. The adjusted efficiency ratio was 52.14% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 47.15% for the same quarter a year ago, and 52.54% for the previous quarter.

    “Over the last few quarters, we’ve made intentional investments in people and technology to ensure that the bank can efficiently scale moving forward, and specifically to support our payment ecosystem, product development, regional expansion, and compliance/risk management initiatives. We saw elevated legal, audit, and technology related expenses in the first half of the year mostly related to addressing the Consent Order,” said Miller.

    Six months ended June 30, 2025:

    For the six months ended June 30, 2025, operating revenue increased 15% to $55.83 million, compared to $48.34 million for the same period in 2024. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, net interest income before the provision for credit losses increased 11% to $37.01 million, compared to $33.44 million for the same period in 2024. The increase in revenue is attributed to growth in the loan portfolio, partially offset by a decrease in investment interest income, an increase in interest bearing liabilities, and the cost of funds. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the yield on earning assets was 6.24% compared to 6.27% for the same period in 2024, while the cost to fund earning assets was 1.02% for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to 1.05% for the same period in 2024.

    For the six months ended June 30, 2025, non-interest income increased 26% to $18.82 million compared to $14.90 million for the same period in 2024. Deposit fee income increased 4% to $1.70 million resulting from growth in business demand deposit accounts. The year-over-year growth in non-interest income was also largely attributable to the decrease in loss on sale of investments, an increase in the gain on sale of loans, and an increase in merchant services revenue.

    For the six months ended June 30, 2025, operating expenses increased by 24% to $32.24 million from $25.99 million for the same period in 2024. Salaries and employee benefits expense increased 21% to $16.06 million as a result of the increase in FTE. There was a 21% increase in merchant services operating expenses, to $6.06 million, which represents 19% of total operating expenses for six months ended June 30, 2025. Other operating expenses increased 38% to $9.41 million due to a $711,000 increase in technology related expenses, increases of $683,000 in professional fees, and increase of $389,000 in marketing expense, and a $293,000 increase in operational losses.

    For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the efficiency ratio was 57.49%, compared to 52.85% for the same period ended June 30, 2024. The adjusted efficiency ratio was 52.34%, compared to 47.48% for the same period ended June 30, 2024.

    Balance Sheet Review

    Total assets increased 2% to $1.47 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $1.44 billion at June 30, 2024, and decreased 6% compared to March 31, 2025.

    The total portfolio of loans increased 13%, or $122.20 million, to $1.09 billion, compared to $969.76 million at June 30, 2024, and remained consistent with the $1.09 billion reported at March 31, 2025.

    Commercial real estate loans increased 22% year-over-year to $683.74 million, representing 63% of total loans at June 30, 2025. The CRE portfolio includes approximately $254.16 million in multi-family loans originated by the Southern California team that the Company may consider selling at some point in the future for liquidity and concentration management. The multi-family portfolio includes $74.32 million in short-term bridge loans for transitional projects of multi-family properties. The short-term bridge loans are conservatively underwritten with minimum DSCR and liquidity requirements. The bank continues to market our bridge loan product in a more measured approach, keeping to our conservative underwriting standards. The real estate construction and land development loan portfolio decreased 84% from a year ago to $12.78 million, representing 1% of total loans, while residential RE 1-4 family loans totaled $17.07 million, or 2% of loans, at June 30, 2025, compared to $17.44 million one year ago.

    The commercial and industrial (C&I) portfolio increased 15% to $266.81 million, at June 30, 2025, compared to $232.79 million a year earlier, and increased 3% from $260.06 million at March 31, 2025. C&I loans represented 24% of total loans at June 30, 2025. Agriculture loans represented 10% of the loan portfolio at June 30, 2025. At June 30, 2025, the SBA, USDA, and other government agencies guaranteed loans totaled $53.36 million, or 4.9% of the loan portfolio.

    Investment securities totaled $254.18 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $345.49 million a year earlier, and decreased $59.65 million from $313.83 million at March 31, 2025. Investment securities were sold during the quarter to generate liquidity ahead of anticipated deposit outflows due to ISO partner exits. The investment portfolio consists of mortgage-backed and municipal securities, both tax exempt and taxable, treasury securities as well as other domestic debt. At June 30, 2025, the Company had a net unrealized loss position on its investment securities portfolio of $25.41 million, compared to a net unrealized loss of $24.50 million at March 31, 2025. The Company’s investment securities portfolio had an effective duration of 6.26 years at June 30, 2025, compared to 5.61 years at March 31, 2025.

    Total deposits increased 6%, or $65.69 million, to $1.23 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $1.17 billion from a year earlier, and decreased $85.73 million from $1.32 billion at March 31, 2025. Non-interest bearing demand deposits increased 4% to $759.30 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $731.03 million at June 30, 2024, and decreased $66.10 million from $825.40 million at March 31, 2025. Non-interest bearing demand deposits represented 61% of total deposits at June 30, 2025. During the second quarter of 2025 non-interest bearing demand deposits were reduced by $111.20 million due to ISO partner exits completed in early June 2025. Certificates of deposits increased 49%, or $55.01 million, during the quarter primarily due to the addition of $51.00 million in brokered deposits that mature over the next 12 months.

    Included in non-interest bearing deposits at June 30, 2025 are $75.83 million from ISO partners for merchant reserves, $45.24 million from ISO partners for settlement, and $11.61 million in ISO partner operating accounts, totaling $132.68 million. These deposits represent 17.5% of non-interest bearing deposits and 10.7% of total deposits.

    Within the $132.68 million in ISO partner deposits retained as of June 30, 2025 are $29.56 million in deposits for ISO partners being exited in the second half of 2025. The Bank plans to replace these non-interest bearing deposits with growth from new Bank customers in its markets and from the existing ISO partners it will continue to support. In the short-term, the new deposit growth will likely be made up of a higher percentage of interest bearing deposits.

    There was $16.00 million in short-term borrowings at June 30, 2025, compared to $68.00 million at June 30, 2024, and $10.00 million at March 31, 2025. The Company primarily utilizes FHLB advances and the Federal Reserve discount window for short-term borrowings. The following table summarizes the Company’s primary and secondary sources of liquidity which were available at June 30, 2025:

    Liquidity Source
    (in thousands)
      June 30, 2025 March 31, 2025
           
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 77,244   $ 103,071  
    Unpledged investment securities, fair value     67,952     104,732  
    FHLB advance capacity     293,198     338,036  
    Federal Reserve discount window capacity     162,755     130,590  
    Correspondent bank unsecured lines of credit     71,500     71,500  
        $ 672,649   $ 747,929  

    The total primary and secondary liquidity of $672.65 million at June 30, 2025 represents a decrease of $75.28 million in primary and secondary liquidity quarter-over-quarter. The decreases in unpledged investment securities and the FHLB advance capacity are the result of investment and loan sales that occurred during the quarter.

    Shareholders’ equity increased 17% to $173.91 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $148.64 million from a year ago, and decreased slightly from the $174.71 million reported at March 31, 2025. Book value per common share increased 22% to $56.87, at June 30, 2025, compared to $46.79 at June 30, 2024, and increased 2% from $55.52 at March 31, 2025. The tangible common equity ratio was 11.80% at June 30, 2025, compared to 10.30% a year earlier, and 11.20% at March 31, 2025. Book value improved as a result of quarterly net income and a reduction in shares outstanding through the bank’s strategic share repurchase program.

    At the Bank level, unrealized losses and gains reflected in AOCI are not included in regulatory capital. As a result, Tier-1 capital at the Bank for regulatory purposes was $222.14 million at quarter end excluding the unrealized loss. The regulatory leverage capital ratio was 14.41% for the current quarter, while the total risk-based capital ratio was 20.61%, exceeding regulatory minimums to be considered well-capitalized.

    Asset Quality

    Nonperforming assets, which consists of nonperforming loans and other real estate owned, increased to $27.23 million, or 1.85% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, compared to $15.37 million, or 0.98% of total assets, from the previous quarter. Of the $26.29 million in nonperforming loans, $10.98 million are covered by SBA guarantees. Total delinquent loans decreased to $2.86 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $19.12 million at March 31, 2025. The increase in nonperforming loans is primarily the result of two multi-family loans, which are real estate secured, totaling $10.00 million to a related group of borrowers. These loans were included in the delinquent balances for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. As a result of their non-accrual status, the balance of the loans exceeding the real estate collateral value is reserved for in the allowance for credit loss, resulting in $1.62 million of additional reserve. The Bank is working closely with the borrowers as they work through stabilization and sale of the properties.

    Past due loans 30-60 days were $1.80 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $17.53 million at March 31, 2025, and $1.05 million at June 30, 2024. There were $1.02 million past due loans from 60-90 days at June 30, 2025, compared to $1.54 million at March 31, 2025 and $175,000 in past due loans from 60-90 days a year earlier. Past due loans 90+ days at quarter end totaled $46,000 at June 30, 2025, compared to $1.05 million, at June 30, 2024. Of the $2.86 million in past due loans at June 30, 2025, $965,000 were purchased government guaranteed loans, which are guaranteed by the SBA for the full payment of the principal plus interest.

    Delinquent Loan Summary   Organic Purchased Govt. Guaranteed Total
    (in thousands)  
             
    Delinquent accruing loans 30-59 days   $ 877   $ 919   $ 1,796  
    Delinquent accruing loans 60-89 days     1,020     —     1,020  
    Delinquent accruing loans 90+ days     —     46     46  
    Total delinquent accruing loans   $ 1,897   $ 965   $ 2,862  
             
    Non-Accrual Loan Summary   Organic Purchased Govt. Guaranteed Total
    (in thousands)  
             
    Loans on non-accrual   $ 26,285   $ —   $ 26,285  
    Non-accrual loans with SBA guarantees     10,979     —     10,979  
    Net Bank exposure to non-accrual loans   $ 15,306   $ —   $ 15,306  

    There was a $3.16 million provision for credit losses in the second quarter of 2025, compared to $291,000 provision for credit losses in the second quarter a year ago, and a $1.16 million provision for credit losses booked in the first quarter of 2025. The provision recorded during the second quarter of 2025 is the result of changes in loan portfolio concentrations, net charge-offs recognized, and a $10.92 million increase in total non-accrual loans which were individually evaluated in the allowance for credit losses.

    The ratio of allowance for credit losses to total loans was 1.40% at June 30, 2025, compared to 1.11% a year earlier and 1.18% at March 31, 2025. The Company individually evaluates non-accrual loans in the allowance for credit losses which has resulted in carrying a higher level of reserve.

    During the second quarter of 2025 the Bank recorded $949,000 in other real estate owned (“OREO”). This OREO was the result of a loan foreclosure completed during the quarter where the bank acquired a single-family-residence property as payment through collateral. The property is in good condition and is anticipated to sell during the second half of 2025.

    “As SBA loans have historically been the primary driver of nonperforming loans, the portfolio is watched very closely. Rates have increased so rapidly over the last two years putting pressure on borrowers. A majority of the loans within the portfolio are floating rate loans tied to WSJ Prime and reset quarterly. Borrowers saw a 50bps reduction in their rates on January 1, 2025 and additional rate relief may occur during the second half of 2025,” added Miller. “The ratio of allowance for credit losses to the total, non-guaranteed, loan portfolio was 1.48%, as of June 30, 2025, and our total non-guaranteed exposure on these SBA loans is $44.61 million spread over 222 loans.”

    “We incurred net charge offs of $605,000 during the current quarter, compared to $27,000 in net recoveries in the second quarter a year ago, and $167,000 in net charge offs in the previous quarter,” said Miller. “Our loan portfolio increased 13% from a year ago with commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans representing 63% of the total loan portfolio. Within the CRE portfolio, there are $49.90 million in loans for CRE office as shown in the table below. Since the majority of our CRE office exposure is concentrated in the Central Valley, we are experiencing less volatility than city center CRE markets. Our credit metrics remain strong as we continue to maintain conservative underwriting standards.”

    (in thousands)   CRE Office Exposure of June 30, 2025
    Region   Owner-Occupied Non-Owner Occupied Total
    Central Valley   $ 24,611   $ 17,268   $ 41,879  
    Southern California     2,262     350     2,612  
    Other California     4,463     417     4,880  
    Total California     31,336     18,035     49,371  
    Out of California     —     524     524  
    Total CRE Office   $ 31,336   $ 18,559   $ 49,895  


    About FFB Bancorp

    FFB Bancorp, formerly Communities First Financial Corporation, a bank holding company established in 2014, is the parent company of FFB Bank, founded in 2005 in Fresno, California. As a leading SBA Lender in California’s Central Valley and one of the few direct acquiring banks in the United States, FFB Bank offers clients a range of personal and business checking accounts, payment processes, and loan programs. Among the Bank’s awards and accomplishments, it was ranked #1 on American Banker’s list of the Top 20 Publicly Traded Banks under $2 Billion in Assets for 2024. The Bank was also ranked by S&P Global as the #34 best performing US community bank under $3 billion in assets. The Company has also received recognition as part of the OTCQX Best 50 Companies for 2019, 2023, and 2024. For additional information, you can visit the Company’s website at www.ffb.bank or by contacting a representative at 559-439-0200.

    Forward Looking Statements

    This earnings release may contain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements provide current expectations or forecasts of future events and are not guarantees of future performance, nor should they be relied upon as representing management’s views as of any subsequent date. The forward-looking statements are based on managements’ expectations and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Although management believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially include, without limitation, the Company’s ability to effectively execute its business plans; the impact of the Consent Order on our financial condition and results of operations; changes in general economic and financial market conditions; changes in interest rates, and in particular, actions taken by the Federal Reserve to try and control inflation; changes in the competitive environment; continuing consolidation in the financial services industry; new litigation or changes in existing litigation; losses, customer bankruptcy, claims and assessments; changes in banking regulations or other regulatory or legislative requirements affecting the Company’s business; international developments; the tariff strategy of the Trump administration, and its related effects on the agriculture industry and connected businesses in the Central Valley; and changes in accounting policies or procedures as may be required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other regulatory agencies. The Company undertakes no obligation to release publicly the results of any revisions to the forward-looking statements included herein to reflect events or circumstances after today, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. The Company claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

    Member FDIC

    Select Financial Information and Ratios   For the Quarter Ended:   Year to Date as of:
      June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024   June 30, 2025   June 30, 2024
    BALANCE SHEET – ENDING BALANCES:                    
    Total assets   $ 1,473,927     $ 1,560,376     $ 1,443,723          
    Total portfolio loans     1,091,964       1,092,441       969,764          
    Investment securities     254,177       313,826       345,491          
    Total deposits     1,234,648       1,320,381       1,168,957          
    Shareholders equity, net     173,908       174,711       148,640          
                         
    INCOME STATEMENT DATA                    
    Operating revenue     27,349       28,476       24,729       55,825       48,340  
    Operating expense     15,768       16,467       13,285       32,235       25,986  
    Pre-tax, pre-provision income     11,581       12,009       11,444       23,590       22,354  
    Net income after tax     6,036       8,098       8,076       14,134       15,866  
                         
    SHARE DATA                    
    Basic earnings per share   $ 1.95     $ 2.56     $ 2.54     $ 4.51     $ 5.00  
    Fully diluted EPS   $ 1.94     $ 2.55     $ 2.54     $ 4.50     $ 4.99  
    Book value per common share   $ 56.87     $ 55.52     $ 46.79          
    Common shares outstanding     3,057,874       3,146,727       3,176,611          
    Fully diluted shares     3,104,067       3,175,178       3,183,844       3,139,346       3,178,974  
    FFBB – Stock price   $ 78.00     $ 76.50     $ 89.00          
                         
    RATIOS                    
    Return on average assets     1.59 %     2.14 %     2.31 %     1.86 %     2.32 %
    Return on average equity     13.75 %     18.83 %     22.89 %     16.26 %     23.08 %
    Efficiency ratio     57.15 %     57.83 %     52.74 %     57.49 %     52.85 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio     52.14 %     52.54 %     47.15 %     52.34 %     47.48 %
    Yield on earning assets     6.18 %     6.31 %     6.40 %     6.24 %     6.27 %
    Yield on investment securities     4.13 %     4.36 %     4.60 %     4.25 %     4.54 %
    Yield on portfolio loans     6.70 %     6.81 %     6.89 %     6.75 %     6.79 %
    Cost to fund earning assets     1.09 %     0.96 %     1.10 %     1.02 %     1.05 %
    Cost of interest-bearing deposits     2.81 %     2.60 %     2.75 %     2.71 %     2.73 %
    Net Interest Margin     5.09 %     5.35 %     5.31 %     5.22 %     5.22 %
    Equity to assets     11.80 %     11.20 %     10.30 %        
    Net loan to deposit ratio     88.44 %     82.74 %     82.96 %        
    Full time equivalent employees     181       175       147          
                         
    BALANCE SHEET – AVERAGES                    
    Total assets     1,525,601       1,531,573       1,407,255       1,528,570       1,377,447  
    Total portfolio loans     1,112,380       1,076,848       954,871       1,094,712       940,216  
    Investment securities     289,127       325,699       334,416       307,312       325,117  
    Total deposits     1,281,357       1,300,550       1,199,124       1,290,901       1,164,121  
    Shareholders equity, net     176,074       174,410       141,881       175,247       138,251  
    Consolidated Balance Sheet (unaudited)   June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024
    (in thousands)      
    ASSETS            
    Cash and due from banks   $ 55,897     $ 83,033     $ 46,477  
    Interest bearing deposits in banks     21,347       20,038       26,842  
    CDs in other banks     1,722       1,724       1,683  
    Investment securities     254,177       313,826       345,491  
    Loans held for sale     —       —       —  
                 
    Construction & land development     12,784       12,649       79,132  
    Residential RE 1-4 family     17,066       17,146       17,439  
    Commercial real estate     683,743       696,625       562,548  
    Agriculture     109,926       104,616       77,518  
    Commercial and industrial     266,810       260,063       232,786  
    Consumer and other     1,635       1,342       341  
    Portfolio loans     1,091,964       1,092,441       969,764  
    Deferred fees & discounts     (3,541 )     (3,946 )     (4,106 )
    Allowance for credit losses     (15,330 )     (12,913 )     (10,749 )
    Loans, net     1,073,093       1,075,582       954,909  
                 
    Non-marketable equity investments     9,809       8,890       8,440  
    Cash value of life insurance     12,594       12,496       12,211  
    Other real estate owned     949       —       —  
    Accrued interest and other assets     44,339       44,787       47,670  
    Total assets   $ 1,473,927     $ 1,560,376     $ 1,443,723  
                 
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY            
    Non-interest bearing deposits   $ 759,300     $ 825,404     $ 731,030  
    Interest checking     75,815       109,555       75,907  
    Savings     49,657       54,686       51,052  
    Money market     183,071       218,940       184,495  
    Certificates of deposits     166,805       111,796       126,473  
    Total deposits     1,234,648       1,320,381       1,168,957  
    Short-term borrowings     16,000       10,000       68,000  
    Long-term debt     38,086       38,046       39,678  
    Other liabilities     11,285       17,238       18,448  
    Total liabilities     1,300,019       1,385,665       1,295,083  
                 
    Common stock     29,501       35,693       37,430  
    Retained earnings     162,272       156,235       129,856  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (17,865 )     (17,217 )     (18,646 )
    Shareholders’ equity     173,908       174,711       148,640  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity   $ 1,473,927     $ 1,560,376     $ 1,443,723  
    Consolidated Income Statement (unaudited)   Quarter ended:   Year ended:
    (in thousands)   June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024   June 30, 2025   June 30, 2024
                         
    INTEREST INCOME:                    
    Loan interest income   $ 18,582     $ 18,069     $ 16,354     $ 36,651     $ 31,726  
    Investment income     2,978       3,499       3,823       6,477       7,335  
    Int. on fed funds & CDs in other banks     270       574       316       844       572  
    Dividends from non-marketable equity     141       132       394       272       523  
    Total interest income     21,971       22,274       20,887       44,244       40,156  
                         
    INTEREST EXPENSE:                    
    Int. on deposits     3,288       2,891       3,008       6,178       5,526  
    Int. on short-term borrowings     126       31       109       158       258  
    Int. on long-term debt     451       451       464       902       929  
    Total interest expense     3,865       3,373       3,581       7,238       6,713  
    Net interest income     18,106       18,901       17,306       37,006       33,443  
    PROVISION FOR CREDIT LOSSES     3,157       1,164       291       4,321       670  
    Net interest income after provision     14,949       17,737       17,015       32,685       32,773  
                         
    NON-INTEREST INCOME:                    
    Total deposit fee income     854       849       847       1,703       1,643  
    Debit / credit card interchange income     215       191       186       407       353  
    Merchant services income     6,609       7,864       6,068       14,473       12,137  
    Gain on sale of loans     1,446       261       509       1,707       961  
    Loss on sale of investments     (243 )     —       (459 )     (243 )     (833 )
    Other operating income     362       410       272       772       636  
    Total non-interest income     9,243       9,575       7,423       18,819       14,897  
                         
    NON-INTEREST EXPENSE:                    
    Salaries & employee benefits     8,002       8,056       6,724       16,058       13,306  
    Occupancy expense     352       353       437       705       820  
    Merchant services operating expense     2,887       3,174       2,664       6,060       5,023  
    Other operating expense     4,527       4,884       3,460       9,412       6,837  
    Total non-interest expense     15,768       16,467       13,285       32,235       25,986  
                         
    Income before provision for income tax     8,424       10,845       11,153       19,269       21,684  
    PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES     2,388       2,747       3,077       5,135       5,818  
    Net income   $ 6,036     $ 8,098     $ 8,076     $ 14,134     $ 15,866  
    ASSET QUALITY   June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024
    (in thousands)      
    Delinquent accruing loans 30-60 days   $ 1,796     $ 17,533     $ 1,046  
    Delinquent accruing loans 60-90 days     1,020       1,537       175  
    Delinquent accruing loans 90+ days     46       46       1,052  
    Total delinquent accruing loans   $ 2,862     $ 19,116     $ 2,273  
                 
    Loans on non-accrual   $ 26,285     $ 15,366     $ 11,250  
    Other real estate owned     949       —       —  
    Nonperforming assets   $ 27,234     $ 15,366     $ 11,250  
                 
    Delinquent 30-60 / Total Loans     0.16 %     1.60 %     0.11 %
    Delinquent 60-90 / Total Loans     0.09 %     0.14 %     0.02 %
    Delinquent 90+ / Total Loans     — %     — %     0.11 %
    Delinquent Loans / Total Loans     0.26 %     1.75 %     0.23 %
    Non-accrual / Total Loans     2.41 %     1.41 %     1.16 %
    Nonperforming assets to total assets     1.85 %     0.98 %     0.78 %
                 
    Year-to-date charge-off activity            
    Charge-offs   $ 772     $ 167     $ —  
    Recoveries     —       —       31  
    Net charge-offs (recoveries)   $ 772     $ 167     $ (31 )
    Annualized net loan losses to average loans     0.14 %     0.06 %     (0.01 )%
                 
    CREDIT LOSS RESERVE RATIOS:            
    Allowance for credit losses   $ 15,330     $ 12,913     $ 10,749  
                 
    Total loans   $ 1,091,964     $ 1,092,441     $ 969,764  
    Purchased govt. guaranteed loans   $ 15,138     $ 16,081     $ 18,141  
    Originated govt. guaranteed loans   $ 38,224     $ 45,285     $ 41,201  
                 
    ACL / Total loans     1.40 %     1.18 %     1.11 %
    ACL / Loans less 100% govt. gte. loans (purchased)     1.42 %     1.20 %     1.13 %
    ACL / Loans less all govt. guaranteed loans     1.48 %     1.25 %     1.18 %
    ACL / Total assets     1.04 %     0.83 %     0.74 %
    SELECT FINANCIAL TREND INFORMATION   For the Quarter Ended:
      June 30, 2025 March 31, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2024 June 30, 2024
    BALANCE SHEET – PERIOD END            
    Total assets   $ 1,473,927   $ 1,560,376   $ 1,504,128   $ 1,512,241   $ 1,443,723  
    Loans held for sale     —     —     —     —     —  
    Loans held for investment     1,091,964     1,092,441     1,071,079     998,222     969,764  
    Investment securities     254,177     313,826     322,186     345,428     345,491  
                 
    Non-interest bearing deposits     759,300     825,404     828,508     826,708     731,030  
    Interest bearing deposits     475,348     494,977     455,869     460,241     437,927  
    Total deposits     1,234,648     1,320,381     1,284,377     1,286,949     1,168,957  
    Short-term borrowings     16,000     10,000     —     —     68,000  
    Long-term debt     38,086     38,046     38,007     37,967     39,678  
                 
    Total equity     191,773     191,928     186,574     176,350     167,286  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (17,865 )   (17,217 )   (18,182 )   (12,715 )   (18,646 )
    Shareholders’ equity     173,908     174,711     168,392     163,635     148,640  
                 
    QUARTERLY INCOME STATEMENT            
    Interest income   $ 21,971   $ 22,274   $ 22,403   $ 21,404   $ 20,887  
    Interest expense     3,865     3,373     3,591     3,617     3,581  
    Net interest income     18,106     18,901     18,812     17,787     17,306  
    Non-interest income     9,243     9,575     9,435     7,616     7,423  
    Gross revenue     27,349     28,476     28,247     25,403     24,729  
                 
    Provision for credit losses     3,157     1,164     1,671     762     291  
                 
    Non-interest expense     15,768     16,467     13,270     12,735     13,285  
    Net income before tax     8,424     10,845     13,306     11,906     11,153  
    Tax provision     2,388     2,747     3,588     3,343     3,077  
    Net income after tax     6,036     8,098     9,718     8,563     8,076  
                 
    BALANCE SHEET – AVERAGE BALANCE            
    Total assets   $ 1,525,601   $ 1,531,573   $ 1,529,439   $ 1,477,259   $ 1,704,255  
    Loans held for sale     —     —     —     —     —  
    Loans held for investment     1,112,380     1,076,848     1,038,215     982,152     954,871  
    Investment securities     289,127     325,699     333,135     343,096     334,416  
                 
    Non-interest bearing deposits     812,753     850,426     838,748     822,200     758,977  
    Interest bearing deposits     468,604     450,124     460,321     432,143     440,147  
    Total deposits     1,281,357     1,300,550     1,299,069     1,254,343     1,199,124  
    Short-term borrowings     11,110     2,856     951     —     10,053  
    Long-term debt     38,068     38,028     37,989     39,479     39,660  
                 
    Shareholders’ equity     176,074     174,410     167,268     161,363     141,881  
    Contact: Steve Miller – President & CEO
      Bhavneet Gill – EVP & CFO
      (559) 439-0200

    The MIL Network –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What Canada can learn from Australia on adequately protecting citizens at live events

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sean Spence, Security Risk Management Pracitioner & Researcher, Royal Military College of Canada

    In April 2025, a man drove an SUV through a crowd of people attending a Filipino cultural festival in Vancouver, killing 11 people and injuring dozens more. In response, the British Columbia government immediately commissioned an inquiry to examine the systemic causes of the incident and whether any lessons could be learned from the tragedy.




    Read more:
    Vancouver SUV attack exposes crowd management falldowns and casts a pall on Canada’s election


    The commission came up with six recommendations based on gaps in the current municipal application and approval system for public events across the province.

    One key recommendation was that all public events should be required to complete a risk assessment. This isn’t currently happening across the province. The absence of such analysis poses a risk for public safety.

    Another recommendation was the creation of local knowledge capacity to support event organizers, particularly for small and rural events, where the expertise to conduct a basic security risk assessment is lacking.

    Forseeable tragedy?

    As I argued in August 2022, the live events industry lacks the same level of professionalism as other occupations. Many of these small event organizers are amateurs who lack the resources to properly deal with the security risks involved in holding their events.




    Read more:
    Canada could have its own Fyre Festival fiasco if it doesn’t amp up event regulations


    These factors, combined with emerging security risks, meant that the tragedy at the Lapu Lapu festival could be considered a foreseeable event given the risk realities associated with modern mass gatherings.

    The inquiry report highlighted how B.C. is lagging behind other international jurisdictions in terms of legislative pro-activeness in securing public events. This policy deficiency is actually a Canada-wide problem; the country is woefully behind other western nations when it comes to securing public events.

    My doctoral thesis examined this very issue when I compared the regulation and application process to host public events in Canada and Australia’s largest cities.

    Australia vs. Canada

    Firstly, it’s important to note that Canada is a less safe country in terms of security than Australia, all things considered equal. Canada’s porous border with the United States means more illegal firearms are entering the country, resulting in more gun violence than in Australia, where there are more restrictive gun ownership laws.

    The Lapu Lapu attack was not investigated as an act of terrorism, but in a related concern, Canada’s intelligence-gathering and national security laws place it at a counter-terrorism disadvantage compared to Australia.

    Relatively speaking, research suggests Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms hinders its security services from being able to detect and investigate terrorism-related offences given the greater importance placed on individual rights compared to Australia, where there is no such Charter equivalent.

    Australia also has pro-active foreign intelligence collection capabilities to aid in its counter-terrorism efforts, while Canada’s CSIS agency only has domestic capabilities. That essentially requires it to import intelligence from its allies.

    Given these facts, it would seem plausible that Canada would be at greater risk for security threats at public events — including terrorist attacks, active shooters, etc. — than Australia.

    When I compared the data between both countries in my research, it suggested Australia has more public event regulation than Canada.

    It was quantitatively shown that Australian officials require risk assessments and other proactive measures from event organizers, including for risk mitigation, while Canadian officials are mostly concerned with reactive security response plans — in other words, determining how organizers would respond to attacks after they occurred.

    An analysis of event application documents in both countries reveal that Australian municipalities disproportionately emphasize “risk management” in approving events compared to Canadian municipalities.

    Three ways the B.C. report falls short

    The B.C. report missed out on examining several important elements.

    Firstly, it did not take a holistic, deep dive into just how vulnerable public events are to myriad security threats — like active shooters, crowd crushing and terrorist attacks — but instead focused solely on the hostile vehicle threat.

    It also failed to consider the urgency of governments to adopt policy changes in the face of emerging threats on public spaces, like drone attacks.

    Secondly, the report made no mention of the need for law enforcement to develop stronger ties to share intelligence with event organizers as a proactive measure to protect mass gathering events from violence. The Hamas attacks at a music festival in Israel in October 2023 highlight the worst outcome of such failures.




    Read more:
    How Israel underestimated Hamas’s intelligence capabilities – an expert reviews the evidence


    Lastly, there was no call for action or recommendation for the federal government to play a greater role in providing guidance to the industry and lower levels of government.

    National security is a federal issue as well as the regulation of airspace for drones. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, the national government provides guidance on protecting public spaces. There is no such policy leadership in Canada.

    The B.C. findings show Canadian authorities have a lot of work to do to make public events safer for Canadians. With the FIFA World Cup coming to Canada next year, Canadian governments still have time to implement corrective actions to ensure soccer fans stay safe.

    Sean Spence provides security consulting services within the hospitality industry.

    – ref. What Canada can learn from Australia on adequately protecting citizens at live events – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-can-learn-from-australia-on-adequately-protecting-citizens-at-live-events-261161

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Chile Strengthens National Cancer Control, Views Expansion of Radiopharmaceutical Production

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    The imPACT team of 13 international experts reviewed cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment and palliative care, as well as nuclear and radiation medicine safety. For the first time, the imPACT review also included radiopharmaceutical production.

    The assessment underlined Chile’s achievements in cancer control, including universal health coverage, the adoption of latest technologies and a highly trained health workforce sustained by strong academic institutions.

    At the same time, the team identified opportunities for improvement, such as strengthening governance and coordination mechanisms for cancer control, reducing waiting times, increasing access in underserved regions, and enhancing national cancer surveillance and information systems.

    Chile has a well-established national governance structure for cancer control, which includes the Child and Adolescent Cancer Plan 2023-2028 and the Adult Action Plan for the National Cancer Plan 2022-2027.  

    “Chile’s cancer control strategy is rooted in inclusive and participatory processes. The involvement of stakeholders from across ministries, academia and civil society is essential to address the most pressing challenges,” said Bernardo Martorell Guerra, Vice Minister of Healthcare Networks at MINSAL.

    The country is seeking to expand cancer control activities, including enhanced infectious disease control, addressing risk behaviours such as tobacco use and expanding access to radiation medicine.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Chile Strengthens National Cancer Control, Views Expansion of Radiopharmaceutical Production

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –

    The imPACT team of 13 international experts reviewed cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment and palliative care, as well as nuclear and radiation medicine safety. For the first time, the imPACT review also included radiopharmaceutical production.

    The assessment underlined Chile’s achievements in cancer control, including universal health coverage, the adoption of latest technologies and a highly trained health workforce sustained by strong academic institutions.

    At the same time, the team identified opportunities for improvement, such as strengthening governance and coordination mechanisms for cancer control, reducing waiting times, increasing access in underserved regions, and enhancing national cancer surveillance and information systems.

    Chile has a well-established national governance structure for cancer control, which includes the Child and Adolescent Cancer Plan 2023-2028 and the Adult Action Plan for the National Cancer Plan 2022-2027.  

    “Chile’s cancer control strategy is rooted in inclusive and participatory processes. The involvement of stakeholders from across ministries, academia and civil society is essential to address the most pressing challenges,” said Bernardo Martorell Guerra, Vice Minister of Healthcare Networks at MINSAL.

    The country is seeking to expand cancer control activities, including enhanced infectious disease control, addressing risk behaviours such as tobacco use and expanding access to radiation medicine.

    MIL OSI NGO –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Analysis Function resources

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    News story

    Analysis Function resources

    Resources to learn more about and promote the Strategy for analysis in government 2025 to 2028

    On this page you will find:

    • A campaign in a box to containing resources to help you promote the Strategy for analysis in government 2025 to 2028
    • Slide templates for use in presentations about the Strategy for analysis in government 2025 to 2028

    Campaign in a Box – Strategy for analysis in government 2025 to 2028

    MS PowerPoint Presentation, 33.5 MB

    This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

    Request an accessible format.
    If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email analysis.function@ons.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

    Presentation – Strategy for analysis in government 2025 to 2028

    MS PowerPoint Presentation, 12 MB

    This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

    Request an accessible format.
    If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email analysis.function@ons.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

    Share this page

    The following links open in a new tab

    • Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
    • Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

    Updates to this page

    Published 23 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    July 24, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Utah Man Pleads Guilty in Making Threats Against Palestinian Rights Organization

    Source: US FBI

                WASHINGTON – Kevin Brent Buchanan, 63, of Tooele, Utah, pleaded guilty yesterday in the District of Columbia in connection with threatening violence against the employees of a D.C.-based Palestinian rights organization, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

                Buchanan pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another. U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly scheduled a sentencing hearing for November 18, 2025. Buchanan faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

                Joining in the announcement were Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Steven J. Jensen of the Washington Field Office.

                According to court documents, between Oct. 31, 2023, and Nov. 2, 2023, Buchanan used his cell phone to call and leave five voice mail messages for members of the organization. In his November 2 message, Buchanan stated in part: “Your families are going to be followed and watched;” “You don’t even belong in America;” “I hope every Muslim in the United States [expletive] croaks;” and “You are all going to [expletive] die, you pieces of [expletive] traitors.”

                Buchanan admitted that he intentionally targeted the organization because its staff and members are Palestinian, and because the organization advocates on behalf of Palestinians.

                The FBI Washington Field Office investigated the case. Valuable assistance was provided by FBI Salt Lake City and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah. Prosecuting the case are Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Visser and Joshua Gold for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Sanjay Patel of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section.

    24cr256

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 23, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: District Man Sentenced to 11.5 Years in Scheme to Steal Residential Real Estate Using Fraudulent Deeds

    Source: US FBI

               WASHINGTON – Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, 68, of the District of Columbia, was sentenced today to 138 months in prison for his role a scheme that stole residential real estate property in order to generate more than $850,000 in fraudulent loans, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

               Young-Bey was found guilty by a jury on Feb.12, 2024, on 12 federal charges: one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and bank fraud, two counts of bank fraud, two counts of mail fraud, two counts of money laundering, and five counts of aggravated identity theft. In addition to the  term of incarceration, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered five years of supervised release.

               Joining in the announcement was FBI Assistant Director in Charge Steven J. Jensen of the Washington Field Office, which led the investigation. 

               According to the government’s evidence, beginning in November 2019, Young-Bey conspired to steal a residential townhome located in LeDroit Park in order to obtain mortgage financing against the stolen property. 

               Young-Bey identified a target property owned free and clear by an elderly homeowner. He then prepared a fraudulent property deed, including forged signatures of the true owners and used a fake notary stamp to make the deed appear legitimate.

               Young-Bey filed the deed with the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds, transferring the title from the true owners to a corporate entity. Young-Bey passed a check to the D.C. Recorder of Deeds to pay for the transfer taxes but put a stop payment order on the check before the D.C. government could cash the check. After causing the fake deed to be recorded with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds, he falsely told a mortgage services business that another individual had inherited the property and wanted to take a large loan against the value of the home.

               Young-Bey created a fake rental lease and deceived the mortgage company into loaning one of his associates approximately $360,000 against the value of the home they did not own, which was split evenly between the two. Young-Bey used his half of the proceeds to buy a BMW 3-Series valued at approximately $23,000. 

               After succeeding on the first scam, Young-Bey executed a second fraudulent scheme on a Shephard Park property in the District, forging the names of the two owners, using the fake notary stamp, and recording the deed at the D.C. Recorder of Deeds Office. Young-Bey again put a stop payment order on the transfer tax check before it could be cashed. Young-Bey used the recorded deed to obtain a construction loan of more than $500,000 against the value of the house.  Young-Bey took a portion of the loan and purchased a BMW 7-Series worth approximately $120,000. He promptly sold the home to a legitimate real estate company for an additional $42,000 in profit. The fraud was discovered when the real estate company began performing renovations on the home and the rightful owners were alerted to the construction and demolition by their neighbors. 

               This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office with assistance from the Metropolitan Police Department. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher R. Howland and Kevin L. Rosenberg of the Fraud, Public Corruption, and Civil Rights Section with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Gina Torres. Valuable assistance was provided by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Rothstein, who investigated and indicted the case, as well as former Assistant U.S. Attorney Virginia Cheatham, former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Viviana Vasiu, and Paralegal Specialist Lisa Abbe, each of whom assisted in investigating the case. The prosecution team was also assisted by Tonya Jones from the Victim Witness Assistance Unit and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Lenerz from the Appellate Section.

    21cr661

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 23, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: YieldMax® ETFs Announces Distributions on HOOY, CONY, ULTY, AMDY, YMAG, and Others

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO and MILWAUKEE and NEW YORK, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — YieldMax® today announced distributions for the YieldMax® Weekly Payers and Group C ETFs listed in the table below.

    ETF
    Ticker
    1
    ETF Name Distribution
    Frequency
    Distribution
    per Share
    Distribution
    Rate
    2,4
    30-Day
    SEC Yield3
    ROC5 Ex-Date &
    Record
    Date
    Payment
    Date
    CHPY YieldMax® Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF Weekly $0.3723 35.54% 0.04% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    GPTY YieldMax® AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF Weekly $0.3219 35.36% 0.00% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    LFGY YieldMax® Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF Weekly $0.4876 62.94% 0.00% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    QDTY YieldMax® Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Weekly $0.1944 22.64% 0.00% 86.12% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    RDTY YieldMax® R2000 0DTE Covered Call ETF Weekly $0.3901 44.01% 1.65% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    SDTY YieldMax® S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call ETF Weekly $0.1607 18.44% 0.07% 42.60% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    ULTY YieldMax® Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF Weekly $0.1029 85.29% 0.00% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    YMAG YieldMax® Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs Weekly $0.2033 68.60% 63.17% 42.42% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    YMAX YieldMax® Universe Fund of Option Income ETFs Weekly $0.1838 68.48% 82.40% 6.23% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    ABNY YieldMax® ABNB Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.3748 40.32% 2.85% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    AMDY YieldMax® AMD Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.5656 85.13% 2.82% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    CONY YieldMax® COIN Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.7951 103.37% 2.93% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    CVNY YieldMax® CVNA Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $2.0473 61.43% 2.71% 97.34% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    DRAY* YieldMax® DKNG Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
      – – – – – –
    FIAT YieldMax® Short COIN Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.1381 60.28% 4.73% 93.10% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    HOOY YieldMax® HOOD Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $6.8981 121.23% 1.43% 100.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    MSFO YieldMax® MSFT Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.4139 29.80% 2.97% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    NFLY YieldMax® NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.4350 32.40% 2.80% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    PYPY YieldMax® PYPL Option Income Strategy ETF Every 4
    weeks
    $0.2731 27.61% 3.48% 0.00% 7/24/25 7/25/25
    Weekly Payers & Group D ETFs scheduled for next week: CHPY GPTY LFGY QDTY RDTY SDTY ULTY YMAG YMAX AIYY AMZY APLY DISO MSTY SMCY WNTR XYZY YQQQ


    Standardized Performance and Fund details can be obtained by clicking the ETF Ticker in the table above or by visiting us at
    www.yieldmaxetfs.com

    Performance data quoted represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when sold or redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost and current performance may be lower or higher than the performance quoted above. Performance current to the most recent month-end can be obtained by calling (866) 864 3968.

    Note: DIPS, FIAT, CRSH, YQQQ and WNTR are hereinafter referred to as the “Short ETFs.”

    Distributions are not guaranteed. The Distribution Rate and 30-Day SEC Yield are not indicative of future distributions, if any, on the ETFs. In particular, future distributions on any ETF may differ significantly from its Distribution Rate or 30-Day SEC Yield. You are not guaranteed a distribution under the ETFs. Distributions for the ETFs (if any) are variable and may vary significantly from period to period and may be zero. Accordingly, the Distribution Rate and 30-Day SEC Yield will change over time, and such change may be significant.

    Investors in the Funds will not have rights to receive dividends or other distributions with respect to the underlying reference asset(s).

    *The inception date for DRAY is July 14, 2025

    1All YieldMax® ETFs shown in the table above (except YMAX, YMAG, FEAT, FIVY and ULTY) have a gross expense ratio of 0.99%. YMAX, FEAT have a Management Fee of 0.29% and Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses of 0.99% for a gross expense ratio of 1.28%. YMAG has a management fee of 0.29% and Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses of 0.83% for a gross expense ratio of 1.12%. FIVY has a Management Fee of 0.29% and Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses of 0.59% for a gross expense ratio of 0.88%. “Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses” are indirect fees and expenses that the Fund incurs from investing in the shares of other investment companies, namely other YieldMax® ETFs. ULTY has a gross expense ratio of 1.40%, and a net expense ratio after the fee waiver of 1.30%. The Advisor has agreed to a fee waiver of 0.10% through at least February 28, 2026.

    2The Distribution Rate shown is as of close on July 22, 2025. The Distribution Rate is the annual distribution rate an investor would receive if the most recent distribution, which includes option income, remained the same going forward. The Distribution Rate is calculated by annualizing an ETF’s Distribution per Share and dividing such annualized amount by the ETF’s most recent NAV. The Distribution Rate represents a single distribution from the ETF and does not represent its total return. Distributions may also include a combination of ordinary dividends, capital gain, and return of investor capital, which may decrease an ETF’s NAV and trading price over time. As a result, an investor may suffer significant losses to their investment. These Distribution Rates may be caused by unusually favorable market conditions and may not be sustainable. Such conditions may not continue to exist and there should be no expectation that this performance may be repeated in the future.

    3 The 30-Day SEC Yield represents net investment income, which excludes option income, earned by such ETF over the 30-Day period ended June 30, 2025, expressed as an annual percentage rate based on such ETF’s share price at the end of the 30-Day period.

    4 Each ETF’s strategy (except those of the Short ETFs) will cap potential gains if its reference asset’s shares increase in value, yet subjects an investor to all potential losses if the reference asset’s shares decrease in value. Such potential losses may not be offset by income received by the ETF. Each Short ETF’s strategy will cap potential gains if its reference asset decreases in value, yet subjects an investor to all potential losses if the reference asset increases in value. Such potential losses may not be offset by income received by the ETF.

    5ROC refers to Return of Capital. The ROC percentage indicates how much the distribution reflects an investor’s initial investment. The figures shown for each Fund in the table above are estimates and may later be determined to be taxable net investment income, short-term gains, long-term gains (to the extent permitted by law), or return of capital. Actual amounts and sources for tax reporting will depend upon the Fund’s investment activities during the remainder of the fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. Your broker will send you a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year to tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes.

    Each Fund has a limited operating history and while each Fund’s objective is to provide current income, there is no guarantee the Fund will make a distribution. Distributions are likely to vary greatly in amount.

    Important Information

    This material must be preceded or accompanied by the prospectus. For all prospectuses, click here.

    Tidal Financial Group is the adviser for all YieldMax® ETFs.

    THE FUND, TRUST, AND ADVISER ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY UNDERLYING REFERENCE ASSET.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable to all YieldMax ETFs referenced above, except the Short ETFs)

    YMAX, YMAG, FEAT and FIVY generally invest in other YieldMax® ETFs. As such, these Funds are subject to the risks listed in this section, which apply to all the YieldMax® ETFs they may hold from time to time.

    Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

    Referenced Index Risk. The Fund invests in options contracts that are based on the value of the Index (or the Index ETFs). This subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it owned shares of companies that comprised the Index or an ETF that tracks the Index, even though it does not.

    Indirect Investment Risk. The Index is not affiliated with the Trust, the Fund, the Adviser, or their respective affiliates and is not involved with this offering in any way. Investors in the Fund will not have the right to receive dividends or other distributions or any other rights with respect to the companies that comprise the Index but will be subject to declines in the performance of the Index.

    Russell 2000 Index Risks. The Index, which consists of small-cap U.S. companies, is particularly susceptible to economic changes, as these firms often have less financial resilience than larger companies. Market volatility can disproportionately affect these smaller businesses, leading to significant price swings. Additionally, these companies are often more exposed to specific industry risks and have less diverse revenue streams. They can also be more vulnerable to changes in domestic regulatory or policy environments.

    Call Writing Strategy Risk. The path dependency (i.e., the continued use) of the Fund’s call writing strategy will impact the extent that the Fund participates in the positive price returns of the underlying reference asset and, in turn, the Fund’s returns, both during the term of the sold call options and over longer periods.

    Counterparty Risk. The Fund is subject to counterparty risk by virtue of its investments in options contracts. Transactions in some types of derivatives, including options, are required to be centrally cleared (“cleared derivatives”). In a transaction involving cleared derivatives, the Fund’s counterparty is a clearing house rather than a bank or broker. Since the Fund is not a member of clearing houses and only members of a clearing house (“clearing members”) can participate directly in the clearing house, the Fund will hold cleared derivatives through accounts at clearing members.

    Derivatives Risk. Derivatives are financial instruments that derive value from the underlying reference asset or assets, such as stocks, bonds, or funds (including ETFs), interest rates or indexes. The Fund’s investments in derivatives may pose risks in addition to, and greater than, those associated with directly investing in securities or other ordinary investments, including risk related to the market, imperfect correlation with underlying investments or the Fund’s other portfolio holdings, higher price volatility, lack of availability, counterparty risk, liquidity, valuation and legal restrictions.

    Options Contracts. The use of options contracts involves investment strategies and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The prices of options are volatile and are influenced by, among other things, actual and anticipated changes in the value of the underlying instrument, including the anticipated volatility, which are affected by fiscal and monetary policies and by national and international political, changes in the actual or implied volatility or the reference asset, the time remaining until the expiration of the option contract and economic events.

    Distribution Risk. As part of the Fund’s investment objective, the Fund seeks to provide current income. There is no assurance that the Fund will make a distribution in any given period. If the Fund does make distributions, the amounts of such distributions will likely vary greatly from one distribution to the next.

    High Portfolio Turnover Risk. The Fund may actively and frequently trade all or a significant portion of the Fund’s holdings. A high portfolio turnover rate increases transaction costs, which may increase the Fund’s expenses.

    Liquidity Risk. Some securities held by the Fund, including options contracts, may be difficult to sell or be illiquid, particularly during times of market turmoil.

    Non-Diversification Risk. Because the Fund is “non-diversified,” it may invest a greater percentage of its assets in the securities of a single issuer or a smaller number of issuers than if it was a diversified fund.

    New Fund Risk. The Fund is a recently organized management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors do not have a track record or history on which to base their investment decisions.

    Price Participation Risk. The Fund employs an investment strategy that includes the sale of call option contracts, which limits the degree to which the Fund will participate in increases in value experienced by the underlying reference asset over the Call Period.

    Single Issuer Risk. Issuer-specific attributes may cause an investment in the Fund to be more volatile than a traditional pooled investment which diversifies risk or the market generally. The value of the Fund, which focuses on an individual security (ARKK, TSLA, AAPL, NVDA, AMZN, META, GOOGL, NFLX, COIN, MSFT, DIS, XOM, JPM, AMD, PYPL, SQ, MRNA, AI, MSTR, Bitcoin ETP, GDX®, SNOW, ABNB, BABA, TSM, SMCI, PLTR, MARA, CVNA, HOOD, BRK.B, DKNG), may be more volatile than a traditional pooled investment or the market as a whole and may perform differently from the value of a traditional pooled investment or the market as a whole.

    Inflation Risk. Inflation risk is the risk that the value of assets or income from investments will be less in the future as inflation decreases the value of money. As inflation increases, the present value of the Fund’s assets and distributions, if any, may decline.

    Indirect Investment Risk. The Index is not affiliated with the Trust, the Fund, the Adviser, or their respective affiliates and is not involved with this offering in any way.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to GPTY)

    Artificial Intelligence Risk. Issuers engaged in artificial intelligence typically have high research and capital expenditures and, as a result, their profitability can vary widely, if they are profitable at all. The space in which they are engaged is highly competitive and issuers’ products and services may become obsolete very quickly. These companies are heavily dependent on intellectual property rights and may be adversely affected by loss or impairment of those rights. The issuers are also subject to legal, regulatory, and political changes that may have a large impact on their profitability. A failure in an issuer’s product or even questions about the safety of the product could be devastating to the issuer, especially if it is the marquee product of the issuer. It can be difficult to accurately capture what qualifies as an artificial intelligence company.

    Technology Sector Risk. The Fund will invest substantially in companies in the information technology sector, and therefore the performance of the Fund could be negatively impacted by events affecting this sector. Market or economic factors impacting technology companies and companies that rely heavily on technological advances could have a significant effect on the value of the Fund’s investments. The value of stocks of information technology companies and companies that rely heavily on technology is particularly vulnerable to rapid changes in technology product cycles, rapid product obsolescence, government regulation and competition, both domestically and internationally, including competition from foreign competitors with lower production costs. Stocks of information technology companies and companies that rely heavily on technology, especially those of smaller, less-seasoned companies, tend to be more volatile than the overall market. Information technology companies are heavily dependent on patent and intellectual property rights, the loss or impairment of which may adversely affect profitability.

    Risk Disclosure (applicable only to MARO)

    Digital Assets Risk: The Fund does not invest directly in Bitcoin or any other digital assets. The Fund does not invest directly in derivatives that track the performance of Bitcoin or any other digital assets. The Fund does not invest in or seek direct exposure to the current “spot” or cash price of Bitcoin. Investors seeking direct exposure to the price of Bitcoin should consider an investment other than the Fund. Digital assets like Bitcoin, designed as mediums of exchange, are still an emerging asset class. They operate independently of any central authority or government backing and are subject to regulatory changes and extreme price volatility.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to BABO and TSMY)

    Currency Risk: Indirect exposure to foreign currencies subjects the Fund to the risk that currencies will decline in value relative to the U.S. dollar. Currency rates in foreign countries may fluctuate significantly over short periods of time for a number of reasons, including changes in interest rates and the imposition of currency controls or other political developments in the U.S. or abroad.

    Depositary Receipts Risk: The securities underlying BABO and TSMY are American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”). Investment in ADRs may be less liquid than the underlying shares in their primary trading market.

    Foreign Market and Trading Risk: The trading markets for many foreign securities are not as active as U.S. markets and may have less governmental regulation and oversight.

    Foreign Securities Risk: Investments in securities of non-U.S. issuers involve certain risks that may not be present with investments in securities of U.S. issuers, such as risk of loss due to foreign currency fluctuations or to political or economic instability, as well as varying regulatory requirements applicable to investments in non-U.S. issuers. There may be less information publicly available about a non-U.S. issuer than a U.S. issuer. Non-U.S. issuers may also be subject to different regulatory, accounting, auditing, financial reporting, and investor protection standards than U.S. issuers.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to GDXY)

    Risk of Investing in Foreign Securities. The Fund is exposed indirectly to the securities of foreign issuers selected by GDX®’s investment adviser, which subjects the Fund to the risks associated with such companies. Investments in the securities of foreign issuers involve risks beyond those associated with investments in U.S. securities.

    Risk of Investing in Gold and Silver Mining Companies. The Fund is exposed indirectly to gold and silver mining companies selected by GDX®’s investment adviser, which subjects the Fund to the risks associated with such companies.

    The Fund invests in options contracts based on the value of the VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX®), which subjects the Fund to some of the same risks as if it owned GDX®, as well as the risks associated with Canadian, Australian and Emerging Market Issuers, and Small-and Medium-Capitalization companies.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to YBIT)

    YBIT does not invest directly in Bitcoin or any other digital assets. YBIT does not invest directly in derivatives that track the performance of Bitcoin or any other digital assets. YBIT does not invest in or seek direct exposure to the current “spot” or cash price of Bitcoin. Investors seeking direct exposure to the price of Bitcoin should consider an investment other than YBIT.

    Bitcoin Investment Risk: The Fund’s indirect investment in Bitcoin, through holdings in one or more Underlying ETPs, exposes it to the unique risks of this emerging innovation. Bitcoin’s price is highly volatile, and its market is influenced by the changing Bitcoin network, fluctuating acceptance levels, and unpredictable usage trends.

    Digital Assets Risk: Digital assets like Bitcoin, designed as mediums of exchange, are still an emerging asset class. They operate independently of any central authority or government backing and are subject to regulatory changes and extreme price volatility. Potentially No 1940 Act Protections. As of the date of this Prospectus, there is only a single eligible Underlying ETP, and it is an investment company subject to the 1940 Act.

    Bitcoin ETP Risk: The Fund invests in options contracts that are based on the value of the Bitcoin ETP. This subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it owned shares of the Bitcoin ETP, even though it does not. Bitcoin ETPs are subject, but not limited, to significant risk and heightened volatility. An investor in a Bitcoin ETP may lose their entire investment. Bitcoin ETPs are not suitable for all investors. In addition, not all Bitcoin ETPs are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Those Bitcoin ETPs that are not registered under such statute are therefore not subject to the same regulations as exchange traded products that are so registered.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to the Short ETFs)

    Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

    Price Appreciation Risk. As part of the Fund’s synthetic covered put strategy, the Fund purchases and sells call and put option contracts that are based on the value of the underlying reference asset. This strategy subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it shorted the underlying reference asset, even though it does not. By virtue of the Fund’s indirect inverse exposure to changes in the value of the underlying reference asset, the Fund is subject to the risk that the value of the underlying reference asset increases. If the value of the underlying reference asset increases, the Fund will likely lose value and, as a result, the Fund may suffer significant losses.

    Put Writing Strategy Risk. The path dependency (i.e., the continued use) of the Fund’s put writing (selling) strategy will impact the extent that the Fund participates in decreases in the value of the underlying reference asset and, in turn, the Fund’s returns, both during the term of the sold put options and over longer periods.

    Purchased OTM Call Options Risk. The Fund’s strategy is subject to potential losses if the underlying reference asset increases in value, which may not be offset by the purchase of out-of-the-money (OTM) call options. The Fund purchases OTM calls to seek to manage (cap) the Fund’s potential losses from the Fund’s short exposure to the underlying reference asset if it appreciates significantly in value. However, the OTM call options will cap the Fund’s losses only to the extent that the value of the underlying reference asset increases to a level that is at or above the strike level of the purchased OTM call options. Any increase in the value of the underlying reference asset to a level that is below the strike level of the purchased OTM call options will result in a corresponding loss for the Fund. For example, if the OTM call options have a strike level that is approximately 100% above the then-current value of the underlying reference asset at the time of the call option purchase, and the value of the underlying reference asset increases by at least 100% during the term of the purchased OTM call options, the Fund will lose all its value. Since the Fund bears the costs of purchasing the OTM calls, such costs will decrease the Fund’s value and/or any income otherwise generated by the Fund’s investment strategy.

    Counterparty Risk. The Fund is subject to counterparty risk by virtue of its investments in options contracts. Transactions in some types of derivatives, including options, are required to be centrally cleared (“cleared derivatives”). In a transaction involving cleared derivatives, the Fund’s counterparty is a clearing house rather than a bank or broker. Since the Fund is not a member of clearing houses and only members of a clearing house (“clearing members”) can participate directly in the clearing house, the Fund will hold cleared derivatives through accounts at clearing members.

    Derivatives Risk. Derivatives are financial instruments that derive value from the underlying reference asset or assets, such as stocks, bonds, or funds (including ETFs), interest rates or indexes. The Fund’s investments in derivatives may pose risks in addition to, and greater than, those associated with directly investing in securities or other ordinary investments, including risk related to the market, imperfect correlation with underlying investments or the Fund’s other portfolio holdings, higher price volatility, lack of availability, counterparty risk, liquidity, valuation and legal restrictions.

    Options Contracts. The use of options contracts involves investment strategies and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The prices of options are volatile and are influenced by, among other things, actual and anticipated changes in the value of the underlying reference asset, including the anticipated volatility, which are affected by fiscal and monetary policies and by national and international political, changes in the actual or implied volatility or the reference asset, the time remaining until the expiration of the option contract and economic events.

    Distribution Risk. As part of the Fund’s investment objective, the Fund seeks to provide current income. There is no assurance that the Fund will make a distribution in any given period. If the Fund does make distributions, the amounts of such distributions will likely vary greatly from one distribution to the next.

    High Portfolio Turnover Risk. The Fund may actively and frequently trade all or a significant portion of the Fund’s holdings.

    Liquidity Risk. Some securities held by the Fund, including options contracts, may be difficult to sell or be illiquid, particularly during times of market turmoil.

    Non-Diversification Risk. Because the Fund is “non-diversified,” it may invest a greater percentage of its assets in the securities of a single issuer or a smaller number of issuers than if it was a diversified fund.

    New Fund Risk. The Fund is a recently organized management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors do not have a track record or history on which to base their investment decisions.

    Price Participation Risk. The Fund employs an investment strategy that includes the sale of put option contracts, which limits the degree to which the Fund will participate in decreases in value experienced by the underlying reference asset over the Put Period.

    Single Issuer Risk. Issuer-specific attributes may cause an investment in the Fund to be more volatile than a traditional pooled investment which diversifies risk or the market generally. The value of the Fund, for any Fund that focuses on an individual security (e.g., TSLA, COIN, NVDA, MSTR), may be more volatile than a traditional pooled investment or the market as a whole and may perform differently from the value of a traditional pooled investment or the market as a whole. Inflation Risk. Inflation risk is the risk that the value of assets or income from investments will be less in the future as inflation decreases the value of money. As inflation increases, the present value of the Fund’s assets and distributions, if any, may decline.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to CHPY)

    Semiconductor Industry Risk. Semiconductor companies may face intense competition, both domestically and internationally, and such competition may have an adverse effect on their profit margins. Semiconductor companies may have limited product lines, markets, financial resources or personnel. Semiconductor companies’ supply chain and operations are dependent on the availability of materials that meet exacting standards and the use of third parties to provide components and services.

    The products of semiconductor companies may face obsolescence due to rapid technological developments and frequent new product introduction, unpredictable changes in growth rates and competition for the services of qualified personnel. Capital equipment expenditures could be substantial, and equipment generally suffers from rapid obsolescence. Companies in the semiconductor industry are heavily dependent on patent and intellectual property rights. The loss or impairment of these rights would adversely affect the profitability of these companies.

    Risk Disclosures (applicable only to YQQQ)

    Index Overview. The Nasdaq 100 Index is a benchmark index that includes 100 of the largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, based on market capitalization.

    Index Level Appreciation Risk. As part of the Fund’s synthetic covered put strategy, the Fund purchases and sells call and put option contracts that are based on the Index level. This strategy subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it shorted the Index, even though it does not. By virtue of the Fund’s indirect inverse exposure to changes in the Index level, the Fund is subject to the risk that the Index level increases. If the Index level increases, the Fund will likely lose value and, as a result, the Fund may suffer significant losses. The Fund may also be subject to the following risks: innovation and technological advancement; strong market presence of Index constituent companies; adaptability to global market trends; and resilience and recovery potential.

    Index Level Participation Risk. The Fund employs an investment strategy that includes the sale of put option contracts, which limits the degree to which the Fund will benefit from decreases in the Index level experienced over the Put Period. This means that if the Index level experiences a decrease in value below the strike level of the sold put options during a Put Period, the Fund will likely not experience that increase to the same extent and any Fund gains may significantly differ from the level of the Index losses over the Put Period. Additionally, because the Fund is limited in the degree to which it will participate in decreases in value experienced by the Index level over each Put Period, but has significant negative exposure to any increases in value experienced by the Index level over the Put Period, the NAV of the Fund may decrease over any given period. The Fund’s NAV is dependent on the value of each options portfolio, which is based principally upon the inverse of the performance of the Index level. The Fund’s ability to benefit from the Index level decreases will depend on prevailing market conditions, especially market volatility, at the time the Fund enters into the sold put option contracts and will vary from Put Period to Put Period. The value of the options contracts is affected by changes in the value and dividend rates of component companies that comprise the Index, changes in interest rates, changes in the actual or perceived volatility of the Index and the remaining time to the options’ expiration, as well as trading conditions in the options market. As the Index level changes and time moves towards the expiration of each Put Period, the value of the options contracts, and therefore the Fund’s NAV, will change. However, it is not expected for the Fund’s NAV to directly inversely correlate on a day-to-day basis with the returns of the Index level. The amount of time remaining until the options contract’s expiration date affects the impact that the value of the options contracts has on the Fund’s NAV, which may not be in full effect until the expiration date of the Fund’s options contracts. Therefore, while changes in the Index level will result in changes to the Fund’s NAV, the Fund generally anticipates that the rate of change in the Fund’s NAV will be different than the inverse of the changes experienced by the Index level.

    YieldMax® ETFs are distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC. Foreside is not affiliated with Tidal Financial Group, or YieldMax® ETFs.

    © 2025 YieldMax® ETFs

    The MIL Network –

    July 23, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 305
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress