CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Taiji Group USA, Inc. (Taiji Group), a paper converter in Conover, N.C., has agreed to pay $460,395.09, to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly providing false information to apply for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan to which the company was not entitled, announced Lawrence J. Cameron, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.
Congress created the PPP in March 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, to provide forgivable loans to small businesses struggling to pay employees and other expenses. In 2021, Congress offered a second round of forgivable PPP loans through the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act. When applying for PPP loans, borrowers were required to certify the truthfulness and accuracy of all information provided in their loan applications.
In March 2021, Taiji Group applied for a second round PPP loan and certified that it was eligible to receive the loan. Among other certifications, Taiji Group certified that no “entity created in or organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China” owned or held 20 percent or more of the economic interest in Taiji Group. The company also certified that it did not retain, as a member of its board of directors, a person who was a resident of the People’s Republic of China. At the time of its application, however, both of these certifications were allegedly false. For this reason, Taiji Group was not eligible for the $271,165 second round PPP loan that it received. After receiving the PPP loan, Taiji Group sought and received forgiveness of the total amount of the loan.
“PPP loans were a lifeline for many businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Cameron. “Ineligible businesses that improperly obtained federal aid loans harmed the taxpayers who funded these programs and reduced the resources available for businesses that were eligible to receive assistance. Our office is committed to rooting out fraud and holding accountable businesses that wrongfully benefited from these federal programs.”
This matter arose from a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties, called relators, to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery. The qui tam case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Sidesolve, LLC, v. Taiji Group USA, Inc., W.D.N.C. Case No. 5:24-cv-98.
The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Johnson.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.
Commenting on the outcome of the evaluation of the cooperation, Representative of Denmark at Eurojust, Ms Kirstine Troldborg, and Liaison Prosecutor for Norway, Mr Rudolf Christoffersen jointly, said: This really shows the importance of long-term judicial cooperation across borders between national authorities. Only by closely working together via Eurojust, we can really tackle major criminal networks and get justice done. The support of the Agency to our joint investigation team has been instrumental in getting these impressive results.
Investigations at national level in both countries showed that a well-structured organised crime group (OCG) trafficked large quantities of different kinds of illicit drugs to Denmark and Norway from Morocco via Spain. In order to tackle the OCG at large, judicial authorities in Denmark and Norway decided to set up a dedicated JIT in 2019, with financial, logistical and operational support from Eurojust.
Over the five-year period, this not only resulted in the total of 1 037 years of prison sentences being imposed, but also in the seizure of over 9 600 kilos of cannabis, around 675 kilos of cocaine, 355 kilos of amphetamine, 77 kilos of synthetic drugs and 41 kilos of heroin across the two countries.
Also, both in Denmark and Norway, various firearms, several apartments and other real estate, a vehicle, a boat, a motorbike and luxury watches, as well as cash and cryptocurrencies, were seized, with a total estimated value of EUR 15.6 million.
The following authorities were involved in the coordination of the operations against the OCG in both countries:
Denmark: National Special Crime Unit; Attached Prosecution Service to National Special Crime Unit
Norway: Norwegian National Criminal Investigation Service
In view of Protocol 22 of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, the EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice does not apply to Denmark. Since the entry into force of the Eurojust Regulation in December 2019, Denmark no longer has a National Member at Eurojust, but a Representative. Norway is one of twelve countries* with a Liaison Prosecutor at Eurojust that can open requests for judicial cooperation to authorities in EU Member States and vice versa, via Eurojust.
*The other countries with Liaison Prosecutors at Eurojust are: Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
BOSTON – A Dominican man, living in Methuen, was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Boston for illegally reentering the United States after deportation.
Santos Guzman, 56, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Denise J. Casper to two years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Guzman is subject to deportation upon completion of his sentence. In November 2024, Guzman pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after being indicted by a federal grand jury in December 2021.
Guzman is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who entered the United States at an unknown date and unknown location. Guzman was convicted in 2019 of two state drug trafficking crimes and, in November 2019, was ordered removed from the United States. On Jan. 7, 2020, he was deported to the Dominican Republic. Thereafter, at an unknown time and place, Guzman reentered the United States and in November 2021, was arrested on a state drug trafficking offense. A copy of his fingerprint from his removal document was compared to his fingerprint taken in connection with his November 2021 arrest and they were identical to each other.
United States Attorney Leah B. Foley Patricia H. Hyde, Acting Field Office Director, Boston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; and Methuen Police Chief Scott J. McNamara made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorney Suzanne Sullivan Jacobus of the Major Crimes Unit prosecuted the case.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Congressional Budget Office to prepare a cost estimate for nearly every bill that is approved by a full committee of either the House or Senate. For those estimates, CBO produces a point estimate—that is, a specific amount—rather than a range. The estimates specify the legislation’s likely effects on federal outlays and revenues compared with the agency’s projections of what would occur under current law over a 10-year period (projections often referred to as CBO’s baseline). Lawmakers can use CBO’s cost estimates to inform their deliberations and enforce budgetary rules. Those estimates generally reflect the middle of the distribution of the most likely budgetary outcomes that would result if a piece of legislation was enacted. Though representing the agency’s best assessment of the legislation’s budgetary effects, estimates can be subject to uncertainty arising from various sources. This document describes how CBO addresses the most common sources of uncertainty in its cost estimates.
Although uncertainty has many sources, this document addresses six.
Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an American subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier, along with three of its current and former employees, have been charged federally with crimes related to a scheme to illegally export aircraft parts and components from the United States to Russia and Russian airline companies without the required licenses from the Department of Commerce.
The three individuals charged include Daniela Friery, 43, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in Loveland, Ohio; Pavil Iglin, 46, a citizen of Russia who currently resides in Florida pursuant to a non-immigrant visa; and Marat Aysin, 39, a legal permanent resident of the United States who currently resides in Florida.
According to the 11-count indictment unsealed today, the three defendants worked for Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an aircraft equipment supplier with office locations near West Chester, Ohio, and Miami.
As alleged in the indictment, following Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Flighttime and the individual defendants knowingly and willfully violated and evaded the export restrictions imposed on Russia to ship aviation parts to Russia and Russian end users, including airlines subject to Department of Commerce Temporary Denial Orders, by mislabeling shipments, providing false certifications, and using intermediary companies and countries to obscure the true end destination and end users. The indictment details four specific export transactions totaling more than $2 million.
For example, in June 2022, Flighttime employees allegedly negotiated the purchase of an auxiliary power unit from an American supplier for $395,000. The U.S. supplier initially expressed hesitation about the transaction due to the company’s connections to Russia. In connection with the purchase, Aysin falsely told the American supplier that the part would be used to replenish stock in West Chester. Through Aysin, Iglin allegedly signed and dated a Russia end-user certificate with the supplier falsely certifying that the part would not be exported to Russia. The part was thereafter illegally exported to Russia for a Russian aviation company without the required license.
The company and three defendants are each charged with one count of conspiring to violate the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), and multiple counts of violating the ECRA, which are federal crimes punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
They are also charged with conspiracy to commit smuggling, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and multiple counts of smuggling, which carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison. Finally, they are each charged with one count of conspiring to launder monetary instruments, a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker for the Southern District of Ohio; Special Agent in Charge Elena Iatarola of the FBI Cincinnati Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Levine of the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the case.
The FBI and BIS are investigating the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy S. Mangan for the Southern District of Ohio is prosecuting the case with assistance from Trial Attorneys Maria Fedor and Menno Goedman of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an American subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier, along with three of its current and former employees, have been charged federally with crimes related to a scheme to illegally export aircraft parts and components from the United States to Russia and Russian airline companies without the required licenses from the Department of Commerce.
The three individuals charged include Daniela Friery, 43, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in Loveland, Ohio; Pavil Iglin, 46, a citizen of Russia who currently resides in Florida pursuant to a non-immigrant visa; and Marat Aysin, 39, a legal permanent resident of the United States who currently resides in Florida.
According to the 11-count indictment unsealed today, the three defendants worked for Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an aircraft equipment supplier with office locations near West Chester, Ohio, and Miami.
As alleged in the indictment, following Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Flighttime and the individual defendants knowingly and willfully violated and evaded the export restrictions imposed on Russia to ship aviation parts to Russia and Russian end users, including airlines subject to Department of Commerce Temporary Denial Orders, by mislabeling shipments, providing false certifications, and using intermediary companies and countries to obscure the true end destination and end users. The indictment details four specific export transactions totaling more than $2 million.
For example, in June 2022, Flighttime employees allegedly negotiated the purchase of an auxiliary power unit from an American supplier for $395,000. The U.S. supplier initially expressed hesitation about the transaction due to the company’s connections to Russia. In connection with the purchase, Aysin falsely told the American supplier that the part would be used to replenish stock in West Chester. Through Aysin, Iglin allegedly signed and dated a Russia end-user certificate with the supplier falsely certifying that the part would not be exported to Russia. The part was thereafter illegally exported to Russia for a Russian aviation company without the required license.
The company and three defendants are each charged with one count of conspiring to violate the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), and multiple counts of violating the ECRA, which are federal crimes punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
They are also charged with conspiracy to commit smuggling, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and multiple counts of smuggling, which carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison. Finally, they are each charged with one count of conspiring to launder monetary instruments, a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker for the Southern District of Ohio; Special Agent in Charge Elena Iatarola of the FBI Cincinnati Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Levine of the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the case.
The FBI and BIS are investigating the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy S. Mangan for the Southern District of Ohio is prosecuting the case with assistance from Trial Attorneys Maria Fedor and Menno Goedman of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Two men were arrested on February 12, 2025, by RCMP NL’s West District General Investigation Section (GIS) at a traffic stop that was conducted on Route 430.
As part of an ongoing investigation, at approximately 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, GIS, with assistance from Deer Lake RCMP, stopped a vehicle on Route 430 near Reidville. The two vehicle occupants were arrested for possession for the purpose of drug trafficking.
At the traffic stop, officers located and seized a quantity of cocaine, more than $2000.00 cash and other items consistent with possession for the purpose of drug trafficking. Both men were transported to Deer Lake detachment and were released on a number of conditions. The pair are set to appear in court at a later date, each to face a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.
The investigation is continuing.
If you have information about drug activity in your community, please contact your local policeor, to remain anonymous, contact Crime Stoppers: #SayItHere 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), visitwww.nlcrimestoppers.comor use the P3Tips app.
Through Kickbacks and Bribes, Defendants Illegally Diverted Tens of Millions of Dollars from COVID-19 Emergency Housing Program to Enrich Themselves
Earlier today, at the federal court in Brooklyn, an indictment was unsealed charging Julio Medina, Christopher Dantzler and Weihong Hu with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, honest-services wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and the use of a facility of interstate commerce in aid of commercial bribery. This morning, Dantzler was arrested on Long Island, Hu in Manhattan and Medina in the Bronx. They will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge James R. Cho.
John J. Durham, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Jocelyn E. Strauber, Commissioner, New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) and James E. Dennehy, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), announced the arrests and charges.
“The defendants’ brazen and illegal kickback scheme stole money from the City of New York that was intended to provide emergency housing and support services during the pandemic,” stated United States Attorney Durham. “Shamefully, the defendants saw the pandemic as an opportunity to line their pockets with stacks of cash, finance a luxury vehicle, purchase homes and pay off personal debts. While New York City was trying to curb the spread of COVID-19, the defendants exploited a nonprofit organization to enrich themselves. My Office will relentlessly pursue those who steal public funds and deprive members of our community of crucial resources.”
DOI Commissioner Strauber stated: “As charged, these defendants, an Executive Director of a City-funded nonprofit and the principals of the nonprofit’s subcontractors, engaged in and concealed a bribery and kickback scheme, pocketing millions of dollars of funds intended to provide emergency housing and support services in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank the Mayor’s Office of Risk Management and Compliance for the referral to DOI that prompted this investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the FBI for their partnership and commitment to protect critical public resources.”
“These three defendants allegedly pocketed millions of dollars from public funds allocated for emergency housing during the pandemic,” stated FBI Assistant Director in Charge Dennehy. “This alleged kickback scheme abused a program designed to provide a vulnerable population with healthier, unexposed lodging alternatives, to finance enhancements to the defendants’ lifestyles. The FBI will never tolerate any individual who twists public programs into a mechanism to sell services for personal profit.”
As alleged in the indictment, Medina founded and served as the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of a non-profit organization that, among other things, provided various reentry services to formerly incarcerated individuals (the “Organization”). In June 2020, the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) contracted with the Organization to administer an emergency transitional housing program (the “Emergency Housing Program”), in partnership with local hotels and other businesses, to combat the spread of COVID-19 in New York City jails. The Organization subsequently entered into agreements with various hotels to operate as reentry hotels under the Emergency Housing Program. In total, between June 2020 and December 2023, the Organization received approximately $122 million in public funds from MOCJ to operate the Emergency Housing Program at these hotels.
Dantzler and Hu each operated or controlled businesses that received tens of millions of dollars in public funds from the Organization under the Emergency Housing Program. Dantzler’s company purported to provide security services at the reentry hotels but was not a licensed security company and did not, in fact, provide security services. Hu operated or controlled two hotels in Queens that operated as reentry hotels under the Emergency Housing Program and was a member of a repurposed catering company that provided food services to formerly incarcerated individuals residing at reentry hotels under the Emergency Housing Program.
Medina solicited and accepted bribes and kickbacks from Dantzler and Hu in exchange for Medina providing business through the Organization to Dantzler’s and Hu’s respective businesses under the Emergency Housing Program. Among other bribes and kickbacks, Dantzler and Hu purchased Medina an approximately $1.3 million townhouse; Hu, through one of her businesses, financed a luxury vehicle for Medina valued at approximately $107,000; and Dantzler paid to purchase and renovate a house for Medina for approximately $750,000.
As depicted in the following photograph, during an in-person meeting in September 2020, Hu also provided Medina with a stack of wrapped U.S. currency in exchange for two checks from the Organization made out to Hu’s catering company, totaling more than $187,000.
In total, Dantzler and Hu provided Medina with at least $2.5 million in U.S. currency and in-kind benefits in exchange for Medina steering approximately $51 million in public funds from the Emergency Housing Program to Dantzler’s and Hu’s businesses. In turn, Dantzler’s security company received approximately $21 million in public funds from the Organization under the Emergency Housing Program, of which Dantzler personally retained approximately $9 million in public funds. Hu’s hotels received approximately $12 million in public funds from the Organization under the Emergency Housing Program, while her repurposed catering company received approximately $17 million in public funds.
The charges in the indictment are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s Public Integrity Section. Assistant United States Attorneys Meredith A. Arfa, Eric Silverberg and Sean M. Sherman are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from Paralegal Specialists Kavya Kannan and Rebecca Roth.
Flett was assigned a triage score of five, which is intended for non-urgent low-priority cases. The statement of claim alleges that the physician who finally saw Flett insinuated that he was hungover, saying something to the effect of: “I don’t know what to tell you, we don’t treat you here for hangovers.”. Flett was not given diagnostic tests, imaging, a physical examination or pain medication.
In a statement made through his lawyer, Flett said, “I knew that there was something seriously wrong with me and this doctor didn’t seem to want to take me seriously or help me. In that moment, I just felt worthless.”
Flett is a father of six, a building contractor, a resident of Winnipeg and a citizen of Tataskweyak First Nation.
Flett’s statement of claim says he endured an 11-hour bus trip to Winnipeg to seek the care he needed while in severe pain and without other healthcare alternatives.
Once in Winnipeg, Flett called 911 and requested an ambulance. He was instructed by the operator to take a taxi to Seven Oaks Hospital. There he was triaged as a priority but still told to wait.
He finally underwent surgery for acute appendicitis more than 30 hours after he first sought care. The surgery left Flett with complications.
Brian Sinclair is not here to personally tell his version of what happened in the 34 hours he spent in September 2008 in the emergency room of a major Winnipeg hospital.
Structures of Indifference by Mary Jane Logan McCallum and Adele Perry.
Sinclair, a middle-aged Anishinaabe man, died from what is normally an easily treated infection. In our 2018 book, Structures of Indifference: An Indigenous Life and Death in a Canadian City, we show how Sinclair’s tragic and unnecessary death reveals some painful truths about the ongoing history of settler colonialism, and how its legacies continue to devalue Indigenous life.
Sinclair was assumed to be drunk by medical staff and did not receive timely or adequate care, while Flett accuses medical authorities in Manitoba of the same treatment.
These types of experiences are not particular to Manitoba, but are mirrored by incidents of medical racism across Canada.
Tania Dick, Dzawada̱ʼenux̱w registered nurse and current Indigenous Nursing Lead at the University of British Columbia, explained to CBC’s The Current in 2018 that many Indigenous families have their own “Brian Sinclair story.”
This includes the family of Joyce Echaquan. Echaquan was a 34-year-old Atikamew mother of six, who recorded hospital staff hurling racial slurs at her while withholding medical treatment causing her death in a hospital north of Montréal in September 2020.
Inadequate treatment
Both Echequan’s and Sinclair’s families and communities made sure that their deaths did not go unnoticed.
In Sinclair’s case, an inquest and a number of reports resulted in significant changes to the way that patients are triaged and managed.
Echaquan’s experience led to an inquest and the development of Joyce’s Principle, which aims to “guarantee to all Indigenous people the right of equitable access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.”
These cases have helped fuel a growing awareness about anti-Indigenous medical racism, including among organizations of medical professionals.
Apologies and pledges
Two years ago, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba (CPSM) apologized and accepted responsibility for failing to fairly treat Indigenous patients and they pledged to take action against anti-Indigenous racism.
And last year, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) also acknowledged the racism and discrimination that Indigenous patients and health care providers face. They apologized and pledged to “act against anti-Indigenous racism in health care.”
The inquests, reports and apologies appear to have fallen short. Flett’s lawsuit claims that his treatment violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks damages under Section 24.1, which says that those whose rights or freedoms have been violated can seek remedies from the courts.
It is a good time for us all to think about the ongoing costs of anti-Indigenous racism in Canada’s past and present.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bay Roberts RCMP is seeking the public’s assistance in relation to a vehicle stolen from Bay Roberts in the overnight hours of Monday, February 3, 2025.
The grey, four door 2017 Honda Civic Touring, NL license plate JGZ 878, was stolen from a residential property in the Water Street area. A stock photo of the same vehicle is attached.
Anyone with any information about this crime, the identity of the person(s) responsible or the current location of the vehicle is asked to contact Bay Roberts RCMP at 709-786-2118. To remain anonymous, contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), visit www.nlcrimestoppers.com or use the P3Tips app. #SayItHere
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)
With Valentine’s Day a few days away, FBI Cleveland reminds the public to remain aware when engaging in online relationships and warns about the hidden dangers when striking up a relationship with someone they have not met in real life.
Romance scams continue to rise, and typically begin when a criminal creates a fake profile on a dating site or social media platform. The scammer tricks victims into believing they’re in a loving and trusting relationship with that online persona. Fraudsters then leverage that relationship and concoct stories of financial hardships, persuading victims to send money, gift cards, cryptocurrency, or other items of value. Confidence scams also include leading an individual to believe they are in a relationship as a “friend” or family member, and are tricked into sending money, personal and financial information, or items of value to the perpetrator or, to launder money or items to assist the perpetrator. This includes the Grandparent’s Scheme and any scheme in which the perpetrator preys on the targeted individual’s “heartstrings,” purporting someone is in trouble, ill, or in an urgent situation.
“While the ability to connect online has never been easier, so too is the risk of becoming victim to a scammer. At any given moment, we can log in to meet new “friends” with shared interests, play a virtual game with someone on the other side of the world, engage in a conversation with a person who may tell us they are a distant relative, or strike up a romance through a dating app,” said FBI Cleveland Special Agent in Charge Greg Nelsen. “Sadly, if you are on a device, you are vulnerable, no matter your age, gender, or technological savviness. The FBI wants to remind the public about these schemes and educate people about the stories these fraudsters will use.”
According to data from the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), Ohioans lost over $15.3 million in 2023 to confidence fraud and romance scams and over $652 million nationwide.
Most commonly, the perpetrators are men targeting women over 40 who are divorced, widowed, elderly, or disabled. The scam usually starts with an “innocent” contact online and builds from there. Romance scammers often use well-rehearsed scripts which have been previously used successfully.
These criminals actively search dating websites, apps, chat rooms, and social networking sites in their efforts to build a relationship with the goal of accessing financial assets or personally identifiable information. Romance scammers often spend hours honing their skills and sometimes maintain detailed journals, describing their targeted victims, to better understand how to manipulate and exploit them.
FBI Cleveland encourages people to do their due diligence about the person they are communicating with, just as you would when meeting in person. Ask a lot of questions and don’t take everything at face value. Even if the person sends casual ‘at-home’ images that appear normal, oftentimes, scammers will steal the identity of another person and use those photos as bait. To avoid meeting in person, scammers often claim to live or work in other parts of the country or world. Eventually, when they feel they have gained the trust of their victims, these criminals will request money, oftentimes for a medical emergency for themselves, a child, or family member, an unexpected legal fee, or some other false purpose, including a church, charity, or natural disaster. They may send a courier, “friend,” or ride share to your home or suggest someplace public to meet to hand over the asset. They may even say that it must be done privately for your safety.
These scams are borderless and anyone of any age can be targeted. The scammers goal is to financially exploit the victim. If someone you meet online needs your bank account information to deposit money, they are most likely using your account to carry out other theft and fraud schemes.
If you find yourself beginning to develop a relationship with someone you meet online, remember these tips to help protect yourself:
Be careful with sharing too much personal information online across all social media sites. Scammers can and often use those details to target you and build commonalities.
If you’re on dating sites, only use platforms with a well-known reputation, and research photos and profiles online to see if anyone has used that name or image elsewhere. It may take a little time on your part but will be well worth the effort in the long run.
Beware of online suitors who try to isolate you from your family or friends, or those who ask you to send inappropriate photos or financial information that could be later used to extort you.
Don’t send money to someone you’ve never met in person. Scammers often use emotional pleas and stories of despair to trick you into believing their story of need.
“The best advice I can give is to encourage friends and family members to have open, honest discussions with one another about these dangers, and be wary about people you meet online who begin to ask or pressure you into sharing personal identifying information, ask you to send money, bitcoin, or gold; or threaten you or someone you love with physical, financial, or emotional harm,” Nelsen added. If you suspect your online relationship is a scam, whether you are involved or someone you know may be falling victim to the scam, call 1-800-CALL-FBI to file a report, or visit ic3.gov to submit a tip. No amount is too large or small to report to the FBI whether it’s a request to wire money, send gift cards, or transfer other items of value. You are the victim and reporting is the only way the FBI can connect the dots and stop these criminals from targeting other people or further exploiting you and your network. You should also contact your financial institution if you’ve already sent money.
Following a report of a residential break and enter in progress in Stephenville, 49-year-old Terrance Benoit, who had fled from the home on foot, was tracked and located by RCMP Police Service Dog Thor.
Shortly after 6:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, Bay St. George RCMP received the report of a residential break and enter in progress at a home located on Townview Road. Surveillance footage captured a man inside the residence. Police immediately attended the scene and searched the home for the suspect. Officers found fresh footprints in the snow at the back of the residence. RCMP Police Service Dog Thor and his handler, Cpl. Ralph, attended the area and conducted a track which led to a home on Woodland Drive in Stephenville.
Shortly before 7:00 a.m., Benoit, who matched the individual captured on the surveillance footage, was arrested and was taken into police custody. A number of stolen items, that had been discarded in the snow near Townview Road, were recovered and returned to the owner.
Later in the day yesterday, a search warrant obtained under the Criminal Code was executed at the residence where Benoit was arrested. Police recovered additional stolen property and other evidence in relation to the break and enter.
Benoit attended court yesterday charged with break and enter, failure to comply with a condition of a release order and breach of probation. He was held in custody and will appear in court again today.
On February 12, shortly before the report of this break and enter, police received a number of reports of a suspicious person breaking into vehicles in Stephenville on York Avenue, Fairview Avenue, Gallant Street and Viking Terrace. Those matters remain under investigation.
Anyone having surveillance footage of a suspicious person in the areas mentioned above or in the area of Townview Road in Stephenville between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:45 a.m. is asked to contact Bay St. George RCMP at 709-643-2118.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Tristian Gerrell-Robert Murphy, 36, of Detroit, Michigan, was sentenced today to two years and 11 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
According to court documents and statements made in court, on June 10, 2024, law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Murphy in St. Albans. Murphy admitted to possessing a loaded Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard .380-caliber pistol, found by officers under the driver’s seat of the vehicle, and a loaded Taurus 9mm pistol found by officers in the trunk. Murphy admitted that he had recently purchased the two pistols. Officers also found a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm pistol in the vehicle’s glove box.
Federal law prohibits a person with a prior felony conviction from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Murphy knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of his prior felony conviction for conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on October 21, 2021. In that case, Murphy participated in a sophisticated nationwide crime conspiracy responsible for dozens of “smash and grab” robberies targeting jewelry stores throughout the United States. Murphy was convicted for his role in the robbery of a jewelry store in Jacksonville, Florida, as part of this conspiracy. Murphy and his co-conspirators entered the store while armed with hammers, smashed glass counters and stole diamonds and other jewelry. During the robbery, an employee was pushed to the floor and then dragged to another part of the store.
At the time of his current offense, Murphy was serving a term of supervised release as a result of his October 21, 2021 conviction.
United States Attorney Will Thompson made the announcement and commended the investigative work of the St. Albans Police Department and the assistance provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
United States District Judge Irene C. Berger imposed the sentence. Assistant United States Attorney JC MacCallum prosecuted the case.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia. Related court documents and information can be found on PACER by searching for Case No. 2:24-cr-101.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) today voted against advancing the nomination of Kash Patel in the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Trump’s nominee to be the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and expressed his opposition:
“In my view, the beginning of the Trump Administration is showing a contempt for the Constitution and a lawlessness that is dangerous for the republic [add]…” said Senator Peter Welch. “We, each of us, must be custodians of that constitutional order and our role as the legislature, in it. Tough judgments have to be made. My judgment is that the President is showing absolute contempt for the United States Congress. And the next stop is contempt for the United States Judiciary. I cannot vote for a person who signed onto that agenda.”
Watch the Senator’s full remarks below:
Read Senator Welch’s remarks as delivered here.
During Patel’s confirmation hearing, Senator Welch grilled the nominee about his refusal to acknowledge that President Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election and stressed the importance of combatting any attempt to weaponize the Justice Department and the FBI under the Trump Administration. Earlier this week, Senator Welch reacted to reports that Patel has been personally involved in the Trump Administration’s ongoing efforts to target and fire career FBI agents and officials. Under oath, Mr. Patel told Senator Welch he had no recollection of the purge at the FBI. Senator Welch reacted:
“If these reports are true, this is perjury. Under oath, Kash Patel said he had no recollection of any discussions or details about plans to purge career FBI agents—but whistleblowers have revealed that he was not only aware but orchestrating it. Kash Patel’s goal is to wreck the FBI, and my colleagues across the aisle must vote no.”
Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ message, delivered by Li Junhua, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, to the high-level dialogue on “Tax Justice and Solidarity: Towards an Inclusive and Sustainable Common Home”, in Vatican City today:
The promise to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is slipping away — in large part due to lack of finance.
Taxation is vital to closing not only the finance gap, but also the justice and solidarity gap.
Yet, countries struggle to mobilize resources. The situation requires a global response. And we are seeing progress — from G20 commitments to negotiations on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.
These efforts are a vital chance to create a framework anchored in inclusivity — essential for legitimacy and efficacy — that supports sustainable development.
The Pact for the Future also includes a commitment to continue constructive engagement in the process and to explore options for international cooperation on the taxation of the super-rich.
I urge all countries to keep driving this work forward. Together, let’s build tax systems with justice, solidarity and inclusivity at their heart.
Louisville, KY –Yesterday, two Kentucky men were sentenced for trafficking in fentanyl and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
U.S. Attorney Michael A. Bennett of the Western District of Kentucky, Acting Special Agent in A.J. Gibes of the ATF Louisville Field Division, Commissioner Phillip Burnett, Jr. of the Kentucky State Police, and Ron Eckart of the Greater Hardin County Narcotics Task Force made the announcement.
According to court documents, Dominik Woods, 23, of Bonnieville, Kentucky, was sentenced to 5 years in prison, followed by 4 years of supervised release, for one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 40 grams of fentanyl and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Woods was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offense.
On April 9, 2020, in Hardin Circuit Court, Woods was convicted of enhanced trafficking in marijuana, less than 8 ounces, and tampering with physical evidence.
Joshua Sanders, 36, of Cave City, Kentucky was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release, for one count of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Sanders was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had previously been convicted of the following felony offenses.
On June 18, 2009, in Hart Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of receiving stolen property, firearm.
On March 29, 2010, in Barren Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of burglary, second degree, and theft by unlawful taking.
On December 22, 2010, in Hart Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of burglary, second degree, and receiving stolen property over $300.
On January 10, 2018, in Larue Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of receiving stolen property under $10,000 and possession of controlled substances.
On January 15, 2019, in Warren Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of fleeing or evading police, first degree.
On May 16, 2019, in Barren Circuit Court, Sanders was convicted of fleeing or evading police, first degree.
There is no parole in the federal system.
This case was investigated by the ATF, the KSP, and the Greater Hardin County Narcotics Task Force.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Ansari prosecuted the case.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
A man who distributed approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine and a kilogram of heroin was sentenced February 11, 2025, to more than 19 years in federal prison.
Manuel Tomas Gaspar, age 25, from Atlanta, Georgia, received the prison term after an August 30, 2024, guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
Information at the sentencing hearing showed that, between December 1, 2023, and February 14, 2024, Gaspar traveled between Georgia and Iowa transporting significant quantities of methamphetamine and heroin. In January 2024, Gaspar delivered 20 kilograms of methamphetamine and one kilogram of heroin to an individual in Cedar Rapids. On February 14, 2024, Gaspar was arrested after delivering an additional 20 kilograms of methamphetamine to the same individual in Cedar Rapids. During that time‑period, Gaspar carried a gun to protect large amounts of drug proceeds and he conducted international wire transfers to the Mexico‑based source of supply.
Gaspar was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge C.J. Williams. Gaspar was sentenced to 236 months’ imprisonment. He must also serve a five-year term of supervised release after the prison term. There is no parole in the federal system.
Gaspar is being held in the United States Marshal’s custody until he can be transported to a federal prison.
The case was prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Michael Hudson and Assistant United States Attorney Dillan Edwards and investigated by the Cedar Rapids Police Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
A man was sentenced on January 31, 2025, to 24 months imprisonment for contempt of court.
Joel Perea-Duenas, age 24, from Sioux City, Iowa, received the prison term after a July 30, 2024, guilty plea to contempt of court.
In the evening hours of June 23, 2020, Perea-Duenas was asked to serve as the getaway driver for a drive-by shooting. He agreed, put on dark clothing, and joined three armed men in a waiting car. The attackers drove to the home of their intended victim, but seeing law enforcement in the area, aborted their attack. Perea-Duenas suggested a secondary target, drove to that new target and identified it to his conspirators. It was a home, occupied by seven people including children. One of the gunmen repeatedly fired upon the home hitting the house at least eight times. Perea-Duenas was later caught by police and admitted he knew about the intended shooting before agreeing to drive, admitted knowing there were people, including children, in the targeted home, and he wanted the shooting to occur to in retaliation against a resident of the home and his family. On November 19, 2021, Perea-Duenas pled guilty to two counts of being a drug user in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison.
On October 27, 2022, defendant was called as a witness at the federal sentencing of an accomplice. He was sworn by the district court judge. When he was questioned under oath, however, he refused to testify because he did not want to testify. The district court advised him that he did not have a lawful right to refuse to answer the questions. Nonetheless, Perera-Duenas persisted in his refusal to testify. The district court continued the sentencing, in part, to give Perea-Duenas time to reconsider his refusal of the district court’s lawful order. The sentencing resumed on December 8, 2022. Perera-Duenas again, communicated his refusal to testify. He was sent back to federal prison to complete his federal sentence for the firearms charge.
On October 19, 2023, while he was still in federal prison, he was charged with contempt of court. On November 20, 2023, he was released from federal prison on the gun charges, he was re-arrested and haled back into federal court to answer for his criminal contempt. On July 30, 2024, he plead guilty. He was sentenced on January 31, 2025, in Sioux City by United States District Court Judge Leonard T. Strand to 24 months’ imprisonment. He must also serve a 3-year term of supervised release after the prison term. There is no parole in the federal system.
Judge Strand indicated in sentencing Perea-Duenas that this was the only time in his career as a jurist that he had encountered a refusal to testify of this nature and that the crime had to be sanctioned stiffly to ensure others do not follow suit.
United States Attorney Timothy T. Duax said: “refusals to testify, like refusals of court orders generally, strike at the very heart of the American justice system and the rule of law. As a result, those who disobey lawfully issued court orders risk prosecution and incarceration.”
Perea-Duenas is being held in the United States Marshal’s custody until he can be transported to a federal prison.
The case was investigated by the Sioux City Police Department and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Forde Fairchild.
ALBUQUERQUE – A Bosque Farms man has been charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a prohibited person as part of an ongoing effort to combat violent crime and protect families in tribal communities through community-focused initiatives.
According to court documents, on or about July 14, 2024, Warren Chewiwi, 51, an enrolled member of the Isleta Pueblo, possessed a 12-gauge shotgun. Chewiwi is prohibited by law from possessing any firearm because he has two prior felony convictions and four prior convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Chewiwi’s prior convictions span three different New Mexico sovereigns—the federal government, the State of New Mexico, and the Isleta Pueblo.
Chewiwi will remain in custody pending trial. At sentencing, Chewiwi faces up to 15 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
U.S. Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez made the announcement today.
The Isleta Pueblo Police Department investigated this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary C. Jones is prosecuting the case.
Cleveland, OH – Late last night, members of the U.S. Marshals led Northern Ohio Violent Fugitive Task Force (NOVFTF) arrested Money Baccus, 18, in Akron, Ohio. Baccus was wanted by the Canton Police Department for aggravated murder. This morning, members of the NOVFTF arrested Deshon Baker, 24, in Euclid, Ohio. Baker was wanted by the Cleveland Division of Police for aggravated murder.
On February 12, 2025, members of the Canton Police Department responded to an address in the 1900 block of 2nd Street SW, Canton, Ohio for a 30-year-old male that suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. It is alleged that Baccus shot and killed the male and fled the scene. Later in the day, members of the U.S. Marshals, NOVFTF arrested Baccus at the intersection of Crosby Street and S. Balch Street in Akron.
On December 28, 2024, officers with the Cleveland Division of Police – 3rd District, responded to a shooting near the intersection of E. 9th Street and Bolivar Road. It was discovered that two males had engaged in a physical altercation that ended in a shooting near the 700 block of Bolivar Road. Simajah Harris, 24, suffered a fatal gunshot wound and was pronounced at MetroHealth hospital. Deshon Baker, 24, was later identified as the suspect in this incident and a warrant for aggravated murder was issued for his arrest. This morning, members of the NOVFTF arrested Baker at an address in the 27000 block of Sidney Drive, Euclid, Ohio.
U.S. Marshal Pete Elliott stated, “Within 24 hours our fugitive task force had two outstanding arrests in Akron and Euclid. Our task force is constantly pursuing and arresting wanted fugitives, in hopes to make the communities we serve safer.”
Anyone with information concerning a wanted fugitive can contact the Northern Ohio Violent Fugitive Task Force at 1-866-4WANTED (1-866-492-6833), or you can submit a web tip. Reward money is available, and tipsters may remain anonymous. Follow the U.S. Marshals on Twitter @USMSCleveland.
On July 7, 2021, pursuant to Sec. 46.1 of the Police Act, ASIRT was directed to investigate a Calgary Police Service officer-involved shooting.
The executive director’s full report can be accessed online.
On April 13, 2023, ASIRT was directed to investigate a fatal officer-involved shooting involving an RCMP officer in Red Deer.
The executive director’s full report can be accessed online.
On Jan. 23, 2024, ASIRT was directed to investigate an Edmonton Police Service officer-involved shooting.
The executive director’s full report can be accessed online.
ASIRT’s mandate is to effectively, independently and objectively investigate incidents involving Alberta’s police that have resulted in serious injury or death to any person, as well as serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct.
This release is distributed by the Government of Alberta on behalf of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team.
A man who was found guilty of murder following a violent attack in Redbridge has been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Marius Ziugzda, 48, (15.06.76), of no fixed address, was sentenced on Thursday, 13 February and will serve a minimum of 18 years.
He was previously found guilty on Friday, 17 January of the murder of 60-year-old Brian Shields following a two-week week trial at Wood Green Crown Court.
Brian, who lived in a disused pavilion in a park with Ziugzda, was killed by blunt force trauma to his head and chest on 20 October 2022 – injuries consistent with multiple punches or kicks.
Detective Sergeant David Brooks, from the Met’s Specialist Crime Command, said: “Despite Ziugzda’s claims that he and Brian were friends, he subjected him to a sustained and ultimately fatal attack. This verdict is a testament to the hard work of the investigation team, the numerous witnesses who came forward and the efforts of the wider police team.”
On the morning of his death, police were called at 11:14hrs to Orchard playing fields (formerly Goodmayes Park extension) in Redbridge, following reports of an unresponsive man at the location. Despite the efforts of emergency services, Brian sadly died.
At the scene, Ziugzda approached the cordon, despite being told by officers that he could not enter the park. Ziugzda then spoke with officers and said that he had been with Brian the previous evening.
Ziugzda said that he had slept at the location and had woken up there that morning to find Brian dead. He said “I killed him today, I don’t know what….” He then said something incomprehensible before saying, “my friend, in the morning I killed him, now…..”
Officers noted that Ziugzda’s hands appeared to have scuff marks and scratches on them and when later questioned by detectives about his earlier comments, he said that the police officer must have misunderstood what he said.
In interview Ziugzda said that he and Brian arrived at the Park at 20:00hrs on 19 October 2022 and at some point that evening Ziugzda said that he left Brian to get water from a local shop.
He claimed that upon leaving and returning to Brian he found him uninjured. He confirmed that it was only the two of them at the location and that they sat up for a period of time drinking and smoking before Ziugzda had fallen asleep next to Brian at the pavilion.
To confirm Ziugzda’s claims, detectives viewed 10 hours of CCTV footage from the two nearest shops to the park and found that Ziugzda had visited one to buy water and alcohol but that at the time he had visible red staining on his trousers. This was later forensically examined and identified as the Brian’s blood, contradicting his account of Brian being uninjured before he went to sleep.
Officers also gathered witness statements which revealed that at about 23:00hrs, loud, aggressive shouting of two distinct male voices could be heard from the area of the disused pavilion.
Following this evidence, Ziugzda was subsequently charged on 23 October 2022.
Scheme Victimized Hundreds of Thousands of People in United States and Abroad
Two Estonian nationals pleaded guilty yesterday for their operation of a massive, multi-faceted cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme that victimized hundreds of thousands of people from across the world, including in the United States. As part of the defendants’ guilty pleas, they agreed to forfeit assets valued over $400 million obtained during the conspiracy.
According to court documents, Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, both 40, sold contracts to customers entitling them to a share of cryptocurrency mined by the defendants’ purported cryptocurrency mining service, HashFlare. Cryptocurrency mining is the process of using computers to generate cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, for profit.
Between 2015 and 2019, Hashflare’s sales totaled more than $577 million, but HashFlare did not possess the requisite computing capacity to perform the vast majority of the mining the defendants told HashFlare customers it performed. HashFlare’s web-based dashboard, which purported to show customers their mining profits, instead reflected falsified data. Potapenko and Turõgin used the proceeds of the fraud conspiracy to purchase real estate and luxury vehicles and maintained investment and cryptocurrency accounts. Potapenko and Turõgin have agreed to forfeit assets worth, as of the date of the plea, more than $400 million. The forfeited assets will be available for a remission process to compensate victims of the crime. Details about the remission process will be announced at a later date.
Potapenko and Turõgin each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. They are scheduled to be sentenced on May 8 and each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The Justice Department thanks the Cybercrime Bureau of the Estonian Police and Border Guard for its support with this investigation. The Estonian Prosecutor General and Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs provided substantial assistance with the extradition. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided extensive assistance to the investigation and the extradition of the defendants.
Supervisory Official Antoinette T. Bacon of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller for the Western District of Washington, Assistant Director Chad Yarbrough of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, and Special Agent in Charge W. Mike Herrington of the FBI Seattle Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Seattle Field Office investigated the case.
Trial Attorneys Adrienne E. Rosen and David Ginensky of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew Friedman and Sok Jiang for the Western District of Washington are prosecuting the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jehiel Baer for the Western District of Washington is handling asset forfeiture aspects of the case.
Individuals who believe they may have been a victim in this case should visit www.fbi.gov/hashflare.
WASHINGTON – London Teeter, 21, of Washington D.C., pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court to her role in a series of seven inside-job robberies of the Chinatown drug store where she was employed as a store manager.
The plea was announced United States Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ryan of the Washington Field Office Criminal and Cyber Division, and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department
Teeter pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act robbery). The Honorable Jia M. Cobb scheduled sentencing for June 12, 2025. When she is sentenced, Teeter is eligible for up to 20 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
According to court documents, Teeter, and three co-conspirators devised a scheme to carry out armed robberies of the Walgreens store in Chinatown nearly once a month, beginning in July 2023, when either she or her co-conspirator were working. As a store manager, Teeter knew the timing of cash transfers within the business. In each robbery, a masked gunman entered the store, forced an employee into the manager’s office or accessed the manager’s office using a code provided by Teeter or her co-conspirator. The gunman then robbed the employees and fled through a rear exit. Teeter and her co-conspirator took turns pretending to be the “victim” manager on duty, knowing that the robberies would be captured on internal surveillance.
The robberies occurred on July 18, 2023, August 2, 2023, September 2, 2023, November 10, 2023, December 4, 2023, January 9, 2024, and February 11, 2024. Teeter was present in the manager’s office and pretended to be the victim of a robbery during the July 18, 2023, and January 9, 2024, robberies.
In response to the robberies, the Chinatown Walgreens hired armed Special Police Officers to protect the business. Teeter was aware that armed Special Police Officers would be present during the robberies and that a co-conspirator robbed the officers of their firearms during the robberies that occurred on December 4, 2023, and February 11, 2024.
In the plea agreement, Teeter admitted that the co-conspirators stole and split at least $28,983. She also acknowledged that she reviewed surveillance footage from the August 2, 2023, robbery during which a co-conspirator briefly placed his firearm on a chair Teeter acknowledged that she sent a co-conspirator a text message stating: “the vid looks so bad,” “idk why he put the gun down,” and “he can’t do it next time [not gonna lie].”
Law enforcement arrested Teeter on February 22, 2024. During the search of her home that preceded her arrest, law enforcement recovered a loaded Glock 45 pistol loaded with 16 rounds of 9mm ammunition.
Trial dates are pending for co-conspirators Michael Robinson, 34, Kamanye Williams, 25, and Gianni Robinson, 27.
This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Violent Crimes Task Force with assistance from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Justin F. Song, Sarah Martin, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Monica Svetoslavov of the Federal Major Crimes Section.
Scheme Victimized Hundreds of Thousands of People in United States and Abroad
Two Estonian nationals pleaded guilty yesterday for their operation of a massive, multi-faceted cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme that victimized hundreds of thousands of people from across the world, including in the United States. As part of the defendants’ guilty pleas, they agreed to forfeit assets valued over $400 million obtained during the conspiracy.
According to court documents, Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, both 40, sold contracts to customers entitling them to a share of cryptocurrency mined by the defendants’ purported cryptocurrency mining service, HashFlare. Cryptocurrency mining is the process of using computers to generate cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, for profit.
Between 2015 and 2019, Hashflare’s sales totaled more than $577 million, but HashFlare did not possess the requisite computing capacity to perform the vast majority of the mining the defendants told HashFlare customers it performed. HashFlare’s web-based dashboard, which purported to show customers their mining profits, instead reflected falsified data. Potapenko and Turõgin used the proceeds of the fraud conspiracy to purchase real estate and luxury vehicles and maintained investment and cryptocurrency accounts. Potapenko and Turõgin have agreed to forfeit assets worth, as of the date of the plea, more than $400 million. The forfeited assets will be available for a remission process to compensate victims of the crime. Details about the remission process will be announced at a later date.
Potapenko and Turõgin each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. They are scheduled to be sentenced on May 8 and each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The Justice Department thanks the Cybercrime Bureau of the Estonian Police and Border Guard for its support with this investigation. The Estonian Prosecutor General and Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs provided substantial assistance with the extradition. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided extensive assistance to the investigation and the extradition of the defendants.
Supervisory Official Antoinette T. Bacon of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller for the Western District of Washington, Assistant Director Chad Yarbrough of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, and Special Agent in Charge W. Mike Herrington of the FBI Seattle Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Seattle Field Office investigated the case.
Trial Attorneys Adrienne E. Rosen and David Ginensky of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew Friedman and Sok Jiang for the Western District of Washington are prosecuting the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jehiel Baer for the Western District of Washington is handling asset forfeiture aspects of the case.
Individuals who believe they may have been a victim in this case should visit www.fbi.gov/hashflare.
A spontaneous memorial of flowers in St Petersburg, Russia, on the day of Alexei Navalny’s death, February 16 2024.Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock
This is the best day of the past five months for me … This is my home … I am not afraid of anything and I urge you not to be afraid of anything either.
These were Alexei Navalny’s words after landing at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport on January 17 2021. Russia’s leading opposition figure had spent the past months recovering in Germany from an attempt on his life by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Minutes after making his comments, Navalny was detained at border control. And he would remain behind bars until his death on February 16 2024, in the remote “Polar Wolf” penal colony within the Arctic Circle.
“Why did he return to Russia?” That’s the question I’m asked about Navalny most frequently. Wasn’t it a mistake to return to certain imprisonment, when he could have maintained his opposition to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, from abroad?
But Navalny’s decision to return didn’t surprise me. I’ve researched and written about him extensively, including co-authoring Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?, the first English-language, book-length account of his life and political activities. Defying the Kremlin by returning was a signature move, reflecting both his obstinacy and bravery. He wanted to make sure his supporters and activists in Russia did not feel abandoned, risking their lives while he lived a cushy life in exile.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Besides, Navalny wasn’t returning to certain imprisonment. A close ally of his, Vladimir Ashurkov, told me in May 2022 that his “incarceration in Russia was not a certainty. It was a probability, a scenario – but it wasn’t like he was walking into a certain long-term prison term.”
Also, Navalny hadn’t chosen to leave Russia in the first place. He was unconscious when taken by plane from Omsk to Berlin for treatment following his poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok in August 2020. Navalny had been consistent in saying he was a Russian politician who needed to remain in Russia to be effective.
In a subsequent interview, conducted in a forest on the outskirts of the German capital as he slowly recovered, Navalny said: “In people’s minds, if you leave the country, that means you’ve surrendered.”
Video: ACF.
Outrage, detention and death
Two days after Navalny’s final return to Russia, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) – the organisation he established in 2011 – published its biggest ever investigation. The YouTube video exploring “Putin’s palace” on the Black Sea coast achieved an extraordinary 100 million views within ten days. By the start of February 2021, polling suggested it had been watched by more than a quarter of all adults in Russia.
Outrage at Navalny’s detention, combined with this Putin investigation, got people on to the streets. On January 23 2021, 160,000 people turned out across Russia in events that did not have prior approval from the authorities. More than 40% of the participants said they were taking part in a protest for the first time.
But the Russian authorities were determined to also make it their last time. Law enforcement mounted an awesome display of strength, detaining protesters and sometimes beating them. The number of participants at protests on January 31 and February 2 declined sharply as a result.
Between Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021 and his death in February 2024, aged 47, he faced criminal case after criminal case, adding years and years to his time in prison and increasing the severity of his detention. By the time of his death, he was in the harshest type of prison in the Russian penitentiary system – a “special regime” colony – and was frequently sent to a punishment cell.
The obvious intent was to demoralise Navalny, his team and supporters – making an example of him to spread fear among anyone else who might consider mounting a challenge to the Kremlin. But Navalny fought back, as described in his posthumously published memoir, Patriot. He made legal challenges against his jailers. He went on hunger strike. And he formed a union for his fellow prisoners.
He also used his court appearances to make clear his political views, including following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, declaring: “I am against this war. I consider it immoral, fratricidal, and criminal.”
Navalny’s final public appearance was via video link. He was in good spirits, with his trademark optimism and humour still on display. Tongue firmly in cheek, he asked the judge for financial help:
Your Honour, I will send you my personal account number so that you can use your huge salary as a federal judge to ‘warm up’ my personal account, because I am running out of money.
Navalny died the following day. According to the prison authorities, he collapsed after a short walk and lost consciousness. Although the Russian authorities claimed he had died of natural causes, documents published in September 2024 by The Insider – a Russia-focused, Latvia-based independent investigative website – suggest Navalny may have been poisoned.
A mourner adds her tribute to Alexei Navalny’s grave in Moscow after his burial on March 1 2024. Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock
Whether or not Putin directly ordered his death, Russia’s president bears responsibility – for leading a system that tried to assassinate Navalny in August 2020, and for allowing his imprisonment following Navalny’s return to Russia in conditions designed to crush him.
Commenting in March 2024, Putin stated that, just days before Navalny’s death, he had agreed for his most vocal opponent to be included in a prisoner swap – on condition the opposition figure never returned to Russia. “But, unfortunately,” Putin added, “what happened, happened.”
‘No one will forget’
Putin is afraid of Alexei, even after he killed him.
Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, wrote these words on January 10 2025 after reading a curious letter. His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, had written to Rosfinmonitoring – a Russian state body – with a request for her son’s name to be removed from their list of “extremists and terrorists” now he was no longer alive.
The official response was straight from Kafka. Navalny’s name could not be removed as it had been added following the initiation of a criminal case against him. Even though he was dead, Rosfinmonitoring had not been informed about a termination of the case “in accordance with the procedure established by law”, so his name would have to remain.
This appears to be yet another instance of the Russian state exercising cruelty behind the veil of bureaucratic legality – such as when the prison authorities initially refused to release Navalny’s body to his mother after his death.
“Putin is doing this to scare you,” Yulia continued. “He wants you to be afraid to even mention Alexei, and gradually to forget his name. But no one will forget.”
Alexei Navalny and his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, at a protest rally in Moscow, May 2012. Dmitry Laudin/Shutterstock
Today, Navalny’s family and team continue his work outside of Russia – and are fighting to keep his name alive back home. But the odds are against them. Polling suggests the share of Russians who say they know nothing about Navalny or his activities roughly doubled to 30% between his return in January 2021 and his death three years later.
Navalny fought against an autocratic system – and paid the price with his life. Given the very real fears Russians may have of voicing support for a man still labelled an extremist by the Putin regime, it’s not easy to assess what people there really think of him and his legacy. But we will also never know how popular Navalny would have been in the “normal” political system he fought for.
What made Navalny the force he was?
Navalny didn’t mean for the humble yellow rubber duck to become such a potent symbol of resistance.
In March 2017, the ACF published its latest investigation into elite corruption, this time focusing on then-prime minister (and former president), Dmitry Medvedev. Navalny’s team members had become masters of producing slick videos that enabled their message to reach a broad audience. A week after posting, the film had racked up over 7 million views on YouTube – an extraordinary number at that time.
The film included shocking details of Medvedev’s alleged avarice, including yachts and luxury properties. In the centre of a large pond in one of these properties was a duck house, footage of which was captured by the ACF using a drone.
Video: ACF.
Such luxuries jarred with many people’s view of Medvedev as being a bit different to Putin and his cronies. As Navalny wrote in his memoir, Medvedev had previously seemed “harmless and incongruous”. (At the time, Medvedev’s spokeswoman said it was “pointless” to comment on the ACF investigation, suggesting the report was a “propaganda attack from an opposition figure and a convict”.)
But people were angry, and the report triggered mass street protests across Russia. They carried yellow ducks and trainers, a second unintended symbol from the film given Medvedev’s penchant for them.
Another reason why so many people came out to protest on March 26 2017 was the organising work carried out by Navalny’s movement.
The previous December, Navalny had announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election. As part of the campaign, he and his team created a network of regional headquarters to bring together supporters and train activists across Russia. Although the authorities had rejected Navalny’s efforts to register an official political party, this regional network functioned in much the same way, gathering like-minded people in support of an electoral candidate. And this infrastructure helped get people out on the streets.
The Kremlin saw this as a clear threat. According to a December 2020 investigation by Bellingcat, CNN, Der Spiegel and The Insider, the FSB assassination squad implicated in the Novichok poisoning of Navalny had started trailing him in January 2017 – one month after he announced his run for the presidency.
At the protests against Medvedev, the authorities’ growing intolerance of Navalny was also on display – he was detained, fined and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment.
The Medvedev investigation was far from the beginning of Navalny’s story as a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. But this episode brings together all of the elements that made Navalny the force he was: anti-corruption activism, protest mobilisation, attempts to run as a “normal” politician in a system rigged against him, and savvy use of social media to raise his profile in all of these domains.
Courting controversy
In Patriot, Navalny writes that he always “felt sure a broad coalition was needed to fight Putin”. Yet over the years, his attempts to form that coalition led to some of the most controversial points of his political career.
In a 2007 video, Navalny referred to himself as a “certified nationalist”, advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants, albeit without using violence and distancing himself from neo-Nazism. In the video, he says: “We have the right to be Russians in Russia, and we’ll defend that right.”
Although alienating some, Navalny was attempting to present a more acceptable face of nationalism, and he hoped to build a bridge between nationalists and liberals in taking on the Kremlin’s burgeoning authoritarianism.
But the prominence of nationalism in Navalny’s political identity varied markedly over time, probably reflecting his shifting estimations of which platform could attract the largest support within Russia. By the time of his thwarted run in the 2018 presidential election, nationalist talking points were all but absent from his rhetoric.
However, some of these former comments and positions continue to influence how people view him. For example, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Navalny tried to take a pragmatic stance. While acknowledging Russia’s flouting of international law, he said that Crimea was “now part of the Russian Federation” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
Many Ukrainians take this as clear evidence that Navalny was a Russian imperialist. Though he later revised his position, saying Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, some saw this as too little, too late. But others were willing to look past the more controversial parts of his biography, recognising that Navalny represented the most effective domestic challenge to Putin.
Another key attempt to build a broad political coalition was Navalny’s Smart Voting initiative. This was a tactical voting project in which Navalny’s team encouraged voters to back the individual thought best-placed to defeat the ruling United Russia candidate, regardless of the challenger’s ideological position.
The project wasn’t met with universal approval. Some opposition figures and voters baulked at, or flatly refused to consider, the idea of voting for people whose ideological positions they found repugnant – or whom they viewed as being “fake” opposition figures, entirely in bed with the authorities. (This makes clear that Navalny was never the leader of the political opposition in Russia; he was, rather, the leading figure of a fractious constellation of individuals and groups.)
But others relished the opportunity to make rigged elections work in their favour. And there is evidence that Smart Voting did sometimes work, including in the September 2020 regional and local elections, for which Navalny had been campaigning when he was poisoned with Novichok.
In an astonishing moment captured on film during his recovery in Germany, Navalny speaks to an alleged member of the FSB squad sent to kill him. Pretending to be the aide to a senior FSB official, Navalny finds out that the nerve agent had been placed in his underpants.
How do Russians feel about Navalny now?
It’s like a member of the family has died.
This is what one Russian friend told me after hearing of Navalny’s death a year ago. Soon afterwards, the Levada Center – an independent Russian polling organisation – conducted a nationally representative survey to gauge the public’s reaction to the news.
The poll found that Navalny’s death was the second-most mentioned event by Russian people that month, after the capture of the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka by Russian troops. But when asked how they felt about his death, 69% of respondents said they had “no particular feelings” either way – while only 17% said they felt “sympathy” or “pity”.
And that broadly fits with Navalny’s approval ratings in Russia. After his poisoning in 2020, 20% of Russians said they approved of his activities – but this was down to 11% by February 2024.
Video: BBC.
Of course, these numbers must be taken for what they are: polling in an authoritarian state regarding a figure vilified and imprisoned by the regime, during a time of war and amid draconian restrictions on free speech. To what extent the drop in support for Navalny was real, rather than reflecting the increased fear people had in voicing their approval for an anti-regime figure, is hard to say with certainty.
When asked why they liked Navalny, 31% of those who approved of his activities said he spoke “the truth”, “honestly” or “directly”. For those who did not approve of his activities, 22% said he was “paid by the west”, “represented” the west’s interests, that he was a “foreign agent”, a “traitor” or a “puppet”.
The Kremlin had long tried to discredit Navalny as a western-backed traitor. After Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “experts from the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency are working with him”. The Russian state claimed that, rather than a patriot exposing official malfeasance with a view to strengthening his country, Navalny was a CIA stooge intent on destroying Russia.
Peskov provided no evidence to back up this claim – and the official propaganda wasn’t believed by all. Thousands of Russians defied the authorities by coming out to pay their respects at Navalny’s funeral on March 1 2024. Many, if not all, knew this was a significant risk. Police employed video footage to track down members of the funeral crowd, including by using facial recognition technology.
The first person to be detained was a Muscovite the police claimed they heard shouting “Glory to the heroes!” – a traditional Ukrainian response to the declaration “Glory to Ukraine!”, but this time referencing Navalny. She spent a night in a police station before being fined for “displaying a banned symbol”.
Putin always avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in public while he was alive – instead referring to him as “this gentleman”, “the character you mentioned”, or the “Berlin patient”. (The only recorded instance of Putin using Navalny’s name in public when he was alive was in 2013.)
However, having been re-elected president in 2024 and with Navalny dead, Putin finally broke his long-held practice, saying: “As for Navalny, yes he passed away – this is always a sad event.” It was as if the death of his nemesis diminished the potency of his name – and the challenge that Navalny had long presented to Putin.
Nobody can become another Navalny
Someone else will rise up and take my place. I haven’t done anything unique or difficult. Anyone could do what I’ve done.
So wrote Navalny in the memoir published after his death. But that hasn’t happened: no Navalny 2.0 has yet emerged. And it’s no real surprise. The Kremlin has taken clear steps to ensure nobody can become another Navalny within Russia.
In 2021, the authorities made a clear decision to destroy Navalny’s organisations within Russia, including the ACF and his regional network. Without the organisational infrastructure and legal ability to function in Russia, no figure has been able to take his place directly.
More broadly, the fate of Navalny and his movement has had a chilling effect on the opposition landscape. So too have other steps taken by the authorities.
Russia has become markedly more repressive since the start of its war on Ukraine. The human rights NGO First Department looked into the number of cases relating to “treason”, “espionage” and “confidential cooperation with a foreign state” since Russia introduced the current version of its criminal code in 1997. Of the more than 1,000 cases, 792 – the vast majority – were initiated following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russian law enforcement has also used nebulous anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on dissenting voices. Three of Navalny’s lawyers were sentenced in January 2025 for participating in an “extremist organisation”, as the ACF was designated by a Moscow court in June 2021. The Russian legislature has also passed a barrage of legislation relating to so-called “foreign agents”, to tarnish the work of those the regime regards as foreign-backed “fifth columnists”.
Mass street protests are largely a thing of the past in Russia. Restrictions were placed on public gatherings during the COVID pandemic – but these rules were applied selectively, with opposition individuals and groups being targeted. And opportunities for collective action were further reduced following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Freedom of speech has also come under assault. Article 29, point five of the Russian constitution states: “Censorship shall be prohibited.” But in September 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said: “In the state of war that we are in, restrictions are justified, and censorship is justified.”
Legislation passed very soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it illegal to comment on the Russian military’s activities truthfully – and even to call the war a war.
YouTube – the platform so central to Navalny’s ability to spread his message – has been targeted. Without banning it outright – perhaps afraid of the public backlash this might cause – the Russian state media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has slowed down internet traffic to the site within Russia. The result has been a move of users to other websites supporting video content, including VKontakte – a Russian social media platform.
In short, conditions in Russia are very different now compared to when Navalny first emerged. The relative freedom of the 2000s and 2010s gave him the space to challenge the corruption and authoritarianism of an evolving system headed by Putin. But this space has shrunk over time, to the point where no room remains for a figure like him within Russia.
In 2019, Navalny told Ivan Zhdanov, who is now director of the ACF: “We changed the regime, but not in the way we wanted.” So, did Navalny and his team push the Kremlin to become more authoritarian – making it not only intolerant of him but also any possible successor?
There may be some truth in this. And yet, the drastic steps taken by the regime following the start of the war on Ukraine suggest there were other, even more significant factors that have laid bare the violent nature of Putin’s personal autocracy – and the president’s disdain for dissenters.
Plenty for Russians to be angry about
How can we win the war when dedushka [grandpa] is a moron?
In June 2023, Evgeny Prigozhin – a long-time associate of Putin and head of the private military Wagner Group – staged an armed rebellion, marching his forces on the Russian capital. This was not a full-blown political movement against Putin. But the target of Prigozhin’s invective against Russia’s military leadership had become increasingly blurry, testing the taboo of direct criticism of the president – who is sometimes referred to, disparagingly, as “grandpa” in Russia.
And Prigozhin paid the price. In August 2023, he was killed when the private jet he was flying in crashed after an explosion on board. Afterwards, Putin referred to Prigozhin as a “talented person” who “made serious mistakes in life”.
In the west, opposition to the Kremlin is often associated with more liberal figures like Navalny. Yet the most consequential domestic challenge to Putin’s rule came from a very different part of the ideological spectrum – a figure in Prigozhin leading a segment of Russian society that wanted the Kremlin to prosecute its war on Ukraine even more aggressively.
Video: BBC.
Today, there is plenty for Russians to be angry about, and Putin knows it. He recently acknowledged an “overheating of the economy”. This has resulted in high inflation, in part due to all the resources being channelled into supporting the war effort. Such cost-of-living concerns weigh more heavily than the war on the minds of most Russians.
A favourite talking point of the Kremlin is how Putin imposed order in Russia following the “wild 1990s” – characterised by economic turbulence and symbolised by then-president Boris Yeltsin’s public drunkenness. Many Russians attribute the stability and rise in living standards they experienced in the 2000s with Putin’s rule – and thank him for it by providing support for his continued leadership.
The current economic problems are an acute worry for the Kremlin because they jeopardise this basic social contract struck with the Russian people. In fact, one way the Kremlin tried to discredit Navalny was by comparing him with Yeltsin, suggesting he posed the same threats as a failed reformer. In his memoir, Navalny concedes that “few things get under my skin more”.
Although originally a fan of Yeltsin, Navalny became an ardent critic. His argument was that Yeltsin and those around him squandered the opportunity to make Russia a “normal” European country.
Navalny also wanted Russians to feel entitled to more. Rather than be content with their relative living standards compared with the early post-Soviet period, he encouraged them to imagine the level of wealth citizens could enjoy based on Russia’s extraordinary resources – but with the rule of law, less corruption, and real democratic processes.
‘Think of other possible Russias’
When looking at forms of criticism and dissent in Russia today, we need to distinguish between anti-war, anti-government, and anti-Putin activities.
Despite the risk of harsh consequences, there are daily forms of anti-war resistance, including arson attacks on military enlistment offices. Some are orchestrated from Ukraine, with Russians blackmailed into acting. But other cases are likely to be forms of domestic resistance.
Criticism of the government is still sometimes possible, largely because Russia has a “dual executive” system, consisting of a prime minister and presidency. This allows the much more powerful presidency to deflect blame to the government when things go wrong.
There are nominal opposition parties in Russia – sometimes referred to as the “systemic opposition”, because they are loyal to the Kremlin and therefore tolerated by the system. Within the State Duma, these parties often criticise particular government ministries for apparent failings. But they rarely, if ever, now dare criticise Putin directly.
Nothing anywhere close to the challenge presented by Navalny appears on the horizon in Russia – at either end of the political spectrum. But the presence of clear popular grievances, and the existence of organisations (albeit not Navalny’s) that could channel this anger should the Kremlin’s grip loosen, mean we cannot write off all opposition in Russia.
Navalny’s wife, Yulia, has vowed to continue her husband’s work. And his team in exile maintain focus on elite corruption in Russia, now from their base in Vilnius, Lithuania. The ACF’s most recent investigation is on Igor Sechin, CEO of the oil company Rosneft.
But some have argued this work is no longer as relevant as it was. Sam Greene, professor in Russian politics at King’s College London, captured this doubt in a recent Substack post:
[T]here is a palpable sense that these sorts of investigations may not be relevant to as many people as they used to be, given everything that has transpired since the mid-2010s, when they were the bread and butter of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Some … have gone as far as to suggest that they have become effectively meaningless … and thus that Team Navalny should move on.
Navalny’s team are understandably irritated by suggestions they’re no longer as effective as they once were. But it’s important to note that this criticism has often been sharpest within Russia’s liberal opposition. The ACF has been rocked, for example, by recent accusations from Maxim Katz, one such liberal opposition figure, that the organisation helped “launder the reputations” of two former bank owners. In their response, posted on YouTube, the ACF referred to Katz’s accusations as “lies” – but this continued squabbling has left some Russians feeling “disillusioned and unrepresented”.
So, what will Navalny’s long-term legacy be? Patriot includes a revealing section on Mikhail Gorbachev – the last leader of the Soviet Union, whom Navalny describes as “unpopular in Russia, and also in our family”. He continues:
Usually, when you tell foreigners this, they are very surprised, because Gorbachev is thought of as the person who gave Eastern Europe back its freedom and thanks to whom Germany was reunited. Of course, that is true … but within Russia and the USSR he was not particularly liked.
At the moment, there is a similar split in perceptions of Navalny. Internationally, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, and a documentary about him won an Oscar.
But there are also those outside of Russia who remain critical: “Navalny’s life has brought no benefit to the Ukrainian victory; instead, he has caused considerable harm,” wrote one Ukrainian academic. “He fuelled the illusion in the west that democracy in Russia is possible.”
Trailer for the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.
Inside Russia, according to Levada Center polling shortly after his death, 53% of Russians thought Navalny played “no special role” in the history of the country, while 19% said he played a “rather negative” role. Revealingly, when commenting on Navalny’s death, one man in Moscow told RFE/RL’s Russian Service: “I think that everyone who is against Russia is guilty, even if they are right.”
But, for a small minority in Russia, Navalny will go down as a messiah-like figure who miraculously cheated death in 2020, then made the ultimate sacrifice in his battle of good and evil with the Kremlin. This view may have been reinforced by Navalny’s increasing openness about his Christian faith.
Ultimately, Navalny’s long-term status in Russia will depend on the nature of the political system after Putin has gone. Since it seems likely that authoritarianism will outlast Putin, a more favourable official story about Navalny is unlikely to emerge any time soon. However, how any post-Putin regime tries to make sense of Navalny’s legacy will tell us a lot about that regime.
While he was alive, Navalny stood for the freer Russia in which he had emerged as a leading opposition figure – and also what he called the “Beautiful Russia of the Future”. Perhaps, after his death, his lasting legacy in Russia remains the ability for some to think – if only in private – of other possible Russias.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Ben Noble has previously received funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust. He is an Associate Fellow of Chatham House.
European defence ministers left their meeting in Brussels on February 12 in shock after the new US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, told them they could no longer rely on the US to guarantee their security.
Hegseth said he was there “to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”.
He also insisted that European countries provide the “overwhelming” share of funding for Ukraine in the future. The US has been the biggest source of military aid to Ukraine, with its weapons, equipment and financial assistance crucial in helping Kyiv resist the Russian invasion.
Hegseth’s comments are in keeping with the stance of the US president, Donald Trump, on the Nato transatlantic military alliance. Trump sees Nato as an excessive financial burden on the US and has repeatedly called on its members to increase their defence spending.
But Hegseth’s remarks could also be seen as a sign of America’s waning commitment to the terms of Nato’s founding treaty. Signed in 1949 by the US, Canada and several western European nations, Article 5 of the treaty requires member states to defend each other in the event of an armed attack.
The US has the largest military – and the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons – in Nato. So, on the face of it, efforts to recast the alliance appear a drastic shift in Europe’s security landscape in the post-cold war era.
However, those familiar with the political sentiment around Nato and the defence of Europe in the US will see that this move follows in the footsteps of what others have sought to do – starting from the very end of the cold war.
Changing over time
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nato was under considerable pressure to change for the new world order. A rising China was not yet on the minds of many in Washington, but the feeling was that the financial commitments the US had made to defend western Europe during the cold war could not continue.
The so-called “peace dividend”, a slogan popularised by former US president George H.W. Bush and former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, allowed nearly all Nato states to reduce their military spending at this time.
In 1992, almost as soon as European Nato countries were shrinking their forces and moving away from mass armies to professional soldiering, the alliance became actively engaged in maintaining a no-fly zone over Yugoslavia.
A new Nato was becoming apparent. It was transitioning from being a collective defence organisation to one of collective security, where conflicts were managed on Nato’s borders.
This collective security arrangement worked well to keep the alliance together until 2001, when the administration of George W. Bush entered the White House and involved the US in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, Nato invoked Article 5 and returned to the principle of collective defence.
Many European countries, including the new, smaller Nato states like Estonia and Latvia, sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The persistent justification I heard in the Baltic states was “we need to be there when the US needs us so that they will be there when we need them”.
Yet in 2011, before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were over, the administration of Barack Obama introduced a foreign policy strategy known as the “pivot to Asia”. The implication was that the US would shift its attention from primarily the western hemisphere to China.
By this point, China had become the second-largest economy in the world and was rapidly developing its military. The reaction to this US policy shift in European capitals was one of shock and disappointment. They saw it as the US deciding that its own security did not sit in Europe like it had since 1945.
Then, in 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas in eastern Ukraine. The pivot to Asia looked like it had stalled. But US interest and investment in European defence continued to decline, with American military bases across Europe closed down. The first Trump administration continued the pattern set by Obama.
President Joe Biden, who entered office in 2021, used Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to show European leaders that the US still saw its own security in Europe and that it would stand beside Ukraine.
But the US continued to insist that European countries invest in their own defence. The UK, Poland and France have all committed to increase their defence spending over recent years – though spending by European Nato states as a whole continued to fall.
There has been a long-held belief in the US that Europe is “freeriding” on American power. While the US saw its own security in Europe, this freeriding was allowed to continue.
But as the perspective of the US has changed, with the focus now on countering China, it has been keen to suggest that European defence should increasingly become the job of Europe itself.
Nato will not go out with a bang. It is much more likely to gradually disappear with a whimper. After all, who did Trump meet on his second day in office? Not Nato but the Quad: an alliance between Australia, India, Japan and the US in the Indo-Pacific.
David J. Galbreath has received research funding from the UKRI.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Alge, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Brunel University of London
Lucy Letby was convicted in two trials in 2023 and 2024 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others in her care at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England between 2015 and 2016.
She is currently serving 15 whole life sentences for the murders. But the case has been called into question as a result of growing concerns about the expert evidence presented at her trial. Will she get a retrial? Here’s what happens next.
In the context of usually cautious expert opinion, the press conference held on February 4 2025 was extraordinary. An international panel of medical experts investigating the medical evidence against Lucy Letby concluded that there were alternative explanations for each of the deaths. They said they found no evidence of deliberate harm, and believe Letby did not murder any babies.
The panel’s chair, Dr Shoo Lee, is a retired neonatal care expert. His 1989 paper on air embolisms was heavily relied on by the prosecution in the Letby trial and appeals. However, Lee has previously said that his research was misinterpreted at trial. At the press conference he said, “we did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.”
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
The panel’s findings put the case in uncharted territory, given Letby’s very recent convictions and the continuing public inquiry into the case.
The public inquiry – the Thirlwall Inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester hospital – will operate based on the assumption, following her convictions, that Letby is guilty. Letby’s barrister has called for the inquiry to be halted pending the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) review of her case.
Despite the findings of the expert panel, Letby’s release or even a retrial is by no means imminent, let alone guaranteed. Letby has already had two applications for leave to appeal refused. The grounds of appeal were related to what her defence argued were errors in judicial decision making during the trial, rather than the medical evidence. Nonetheless, this means that the CCRC is the only route left open to Letby to challenge her convictions.
Letby’s defence team confirmed that a preliminary application has been made to the CCRC, with a full submission to follow. The CCRC investigates potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The commission is expected to treat Letby’s case as a priority given the public interest. But it is still likely to take at least a year to review the considerable evidence before a referral back to the Court of Appeal could even be considered.
What evidence will be considered?
The CCRC aims to complete cases within 12 months of receiving the application. But the organisation has recently come under criticism over how it handled the case of Andrew Malkinson, who was wrongly jailed for 17 years for a crime he did not commit.
When the CCRC considers the full application, they have the power to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. In order to do so, the commission requires new evidence or other relevant factors which would support a fresh appeal.
The findings of the medical panel will be part of the defence submission. The CCRC will decide, with other factors, whether they constitute fresh grounds for an appeal. It is particularly compelling that the prosecution case relied on Dr Lee’s research, and yet it is in part his expertise that has become a crucial element of the defence.
To send the case back for appeal, the CCRC would also need to conclude that there was a “real possibility” of the conviction being overturned.
It is important to remember that the case against Letby included statistical and circumstantial evidence as well as medical opinion. However, what are alleged to be numerous fallacies in the statistical evidence have been highlighted. And circumstantial evidence is just that – circumstantial. Letby was convicted on the medical evidence.
The evidence given as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry will be within the remit of the CCRC too. Although the inquiry has not yet formally concluded, all oral testimony has taken place. As would be expected given the inquiry’s terms of reference, much of the evidence heard has been less favourable to Letby.
The CCRC also has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to instruct its own expert witnesses and interview previous and potential new witnesses.
If the CCRC ultimately decides to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, it will be treated like any other appeal. It could result either in the conviction being quashed and Letby going free, or a retrial.
A retrial would follow if the appeal judges believed that a retrial met the criteria set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and was in the interests of justice. The likelihood of this outcome depends on the strength of the medical evidence presented to the CCRC and the Court of Appeal.
As the Thirlwall Inquiry and the CCRC application are separate processes, is it technically not essential that the inquiry concludes before the CCRC makes a decision. Closing submissions to the inquiry are scheduled for March 2025, with the report expected later in the year. This should fit within the expected timeframe of the CCRC taking at least a year to consider the application.
A further complicating factor is Lee’s assertion that the Countess of Chester hospital provided such bad care that it would have been “shut down” in his home country of Canada. This will no doubt lead to legal claims against the NHS trust, particularly if Letby is exonerated and culpability for avoidable deaths is sought elsewhere.
Some, including Lee, have gone so far as to suggest the new evidence is so compelling that Letby should be released on house arrest pending the CCRC review. This would be highly unusual, and for the time being, Letby remains imprisoned as one of the worst child serial killers in modern British history.
Daniel Alge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
More than 26 years after the murder of David John Robinson, Tasman Police have reopened the investigation into his death, with enquiries under way in the small West Coast town of Kakapotahi.
A homicide investigation was launched on 28 December 1998, after the body of the then-25-year-old David was located on a remote West Coast beach near Ross.
Detective Inspector Geoff Baber of the Tasman District Police says David was killed approximately 10 days before the discovery of his body.
The initial Police investigation located several of David’s possessions scattered across the beach, indicating he had likely been staying in the area before he died.
After extensive enquiries at the time of his death – including interviewing a number of people within the community and conducting searches of nearby beach, bush and river areas – the investigation was scaled back.
“The investigation has been periodically reviewed and police continue to make additional enquiries over the years.
“I want David’s family and the community to know we will not give up – Police are determined to find out what happened in this small rural community, shortly before Christmas over 26 years ago.”
Police have been canvasing the Kakapotahi area this week and enquiries will continue in the coming days and weeks.
“David would have been 51 now, and while his murder was nearly three decades ago his family continue to grieve.
“We know people may not have wanted to previously tell us what they saw or heard, but the passing of time may have changed things for them, and they may see things differently now with regards to David and what happened to him.
“If you do know something, we encourage you to come forward and speak to us – it is not too late to provide David’s family with answers.”
If you have information that could help Police’s investigation, please email us via the Cold Case form on the New Zealand Police website, or call 105 and reference the case number 231129/2221.
