NewzIntel.com

Category: Law Enforcement

  • MIL-OSI Security: Canadian Cybercriminal Sentenced to One Year in Prison for NFT Theft Scheme

    Source: US FBI

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Canadian was sentenced yesterday to a year in prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit aggravated identity theft.

    According to court documents, in May 2022, Cameron Albert Redman, 22, of Mississauga, Ontario, formed a scheme to steal non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by gaining unauthorized access to the X accounts of various digital artists. The conspirators used the artists’ online identities to direct the artists’ followers to fraudulent websites. There, victims would seek to claim new NFTs from the digital artists. Though victims thought they were authorizing a transaction to receive NFTs into their digital wallets, they unknowingly enabled the conspirators to remove cryptocurrency and NFTs from their wallets.

    Within a few days, Redman and his co-conspirators defrauded over 200 victims and profited over $794,000.

    Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Reid Davis, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office’s Criminal Division, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

    The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided substantial assistance to secure the arrest and March 2025 extradition from Portugal of Redman. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cybercrime Investigation Team, Central Region, provided valuable assistance in this case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Zoe Bedell prosecuted the case.

    A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-129.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Canadian Cybercriminal Sentenced to One Year in Prison for NFT Theft Scheme

    Source: US FBI

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Canadian was sentenced yesterday to a year in prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit aggravated identity theft.

    According to court documents, in May 2022, Cameron Albert Redman, 22, of Mississauga, Ontario, formed a scheme to steal non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by gaining unauthorized access to the X accounts of various digital artists. The conspirators used the artists’ online identities to direct the artists’ followers to fraudulent websites. There, victims would seek to claim new NFTs from the digital artists. Though victims thought they were authorizing a transaction to receive NFTs into their digital wallets, they unknowingly enabled the conspirators to remove cryptocurrency and NFTs from their wallets.

    Within a few days, Redman and his co-conspirators defrauded over 200 victims and profited over $794,000.

    Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Reid Davis, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office’s Criminal Division, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

    The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided substantial assistance to secure the arrest and March 2025 extradition from Portugal of Redman. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cybercrime Investigation Team, Central Region, provided valuable assistance in this case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Zoe Bedell prosecuted the case.

    A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-129.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Five Co-Conspirators Plead Guilty to Smuggling Contraband Into the D.C. Jail

    Source: US FBI

               WASHINGTON – LaTara Brown, 31, of Capitol Heights, Maryland, Kiya Holland, 33, of Oxon Hill, Maryland, Darius Robertson, 31, of Washington, D.C., Marcel Vines, 28, of Washington, D.C., and Stefon Freshley, 28 of Washington, D.C. have all pleaded guilty in a conspiracy to provide a knife, cell phones, and fentanyl and other controlled substances to inmates in the D.C. jail as they awaited trial for murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. The pleas were announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

               Brown, Holland, Robertson, Vines and Freshley pleaded guilty in District Court. They were previously indicted on November 14, 2024 for providing or possessing contraband in a prison, as well as conspiring to do so. The sixth co-conspirator, Rashaad Roper, 45, of Gaithersburg, MD is set to go to trial.

               As part of the plea, Brown, Holland, Robertson, Vines and Freshley admitted to their role in the conspiracy which included Holland and Brown admitting to packaging contraband, such as a knife, cell phones, and controlled substances to include fentanyl, into Tupperware containers which would then be brought to the Central Detention Facility, also known as the D.C. Jail. Robertson, Vines, and/or Freshley, who were inmates inside the housing unit, admitted to receiving the contraband from Officer Roper or another corrections officer after they were smuggled into the jail.

                Sentencings are scheduled for August 13, 2025 (Vines), September 5, 2025 (Holland), September 16, 2025 (Robertson), September 25, 2025 (Freshley), and October 21, 2025 (Brown). Each defendant faces a statutory maximum sentence of 5 years in prison for conspiracy to provide or possess contraband in a prison. Judge Timothy J. Kelly will determine the appropriate sentence at each of the respective sentencings. 

               Joining in the announcement was FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division Special Agent in Charge Reid Davis and Chief Investigator Kevin L. Hammond of the D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Investigative Services.

               This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Investigative Services with the assistance of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joshua Gold and Sarah Santiago.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Five Co-Conspirators Plead Guilty to Smuggling Contraband Into the D.C. Jail

    Source: US FBI

               WASHINGTON – LaTara Brown, 31, of Capitol Heights, Maryland, Kiya Holland, 33, of Oxon Hill, Maryland, Darius Robertson, 31, of Washington, D.C., Marcel Vines, 28, of Washington, D.C., and Stefon Freshley, 28 of Washington, D.C. have all pleaded guilty in a conspiracy to provide a knife, cell phones, and fentanyl and other controlled substances to inmates in the D.C. jail as they awaited trial for murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. The pleas were announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

               Brown, Holland, Robertson, Vines and Freshley pleaded guilty in District Court. They were previously indicted on November 14, 2024 for providing or possessing contraband in a prison, as well as conspiring to do so. The sixth co-conspirator, Rashaad Roper, 45, of Gaithersburg, MD is set to go to trial.

               As part of the plea, Brown, Holland, Robertson, Vines and Freshley admitted to their role in the conspiracy which included Holland and Brown admitting to packaging contraband, such as a knife, cell phones, and controlled substances to include fentanyl, into Tupperware containers which would then be brought to the Central Detention Facility, also known as the D.C. Jail. Robertson, Vines, and/or Freshley, who were inmates inside the housing unit, admitted to receiving the contraband from Officer Roper or another corrections officer after they were smuggled into the jail.

                Sentencings are scheduled for August 13, 2025 (Vines), September 5, 2025 (Holland), September 16, 2025 (Robertson), September 25, 2025 (Freshley), and October 21, 2025 (Brown). Each defendant faces a statutory maximum sentence of 5 years in prison for conspiracy to provide or possess contraband in a prison. Judge Timothy J. Kelly will determine the appropriate sentence at each of the respective sentencings. 

               Joining in the announcement was FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division Special Agent in Charge Reid Davis and Chief Investigator Kevin L. Hammond of the D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Investigative Services.

               This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Investigative Services with the assistance of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joshua Gold and Sarah Santiago.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fischer, Cortez Masto Introduce MAP for Broadband Funding Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer

    Provides fresh oversight over FCC’s Broadband Funding Map, originally created by Fischer, Cortez Masto

    Today, U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) introduced the Modernization, Accountability, and Planning (MAP) for Broadband Funding Act, to provide oversight of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Broadband Funding Map to ensure it is functioning effectively for the public, federal agencies, and broadband providers.

    Fischer and Cortez Masto originally created the Broadband Funding Map as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. With oversight needed to ensure federal agencies are utilizing the Map to its full potential, the MAP For Broadway Funding Act will ensure that these agencies are reliably reporting their funding data to the FCC.

    “I have worked diligently for years to close the digital divide for unserved and underserved communities. My work with Senator Cortez Masto was underscored by the Broadband Funding Map, which we created in 2021. While I’m pleased the FCC launched the Map in 2023, it is clear oversight is needed here to ensure all federal agencies are utilizing the Map to its full potential. I won’t relent in my efforts to expand Internet connectivity for those who lack access—this is a critical step in that mission,”     Fischer said. 

    “As we work to expand broadband access across the country, it’s critical that we do with as much transparency, accountability, and coordination as possible. Reliable access to the internet is already so important for people to work and take care of their everyday tasks. Congress must ensure we continue to expand its access efficiently,” Cortez Masto said.

    “Big thanks to Senators Fischer and Cortez Masto for their work in bringing about the MAP for Broadband Funding Act. By improving the accuracy and transparency of the Broadband Funding Map, we can more effectively target federal funding for broadband deployment where it’s truly needed. Plus, requiring federal agencies to report broadband deployment data to the FCC and NTIA will strengthen coordination and accountability across programs,” USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter said. 

    “Senator Fischer should be commended for marshaling the Federal Communications Commission and the Government Accountability Office to ensure that precious federal broadband dollars are spent as efficiently as possible. CostQuest appreciates the Senator’s data-driven approach to ensuring accountability for broadband spending across the government,”CostQuest Associates said.

    Background    :

    The MAP for Broadband Funding Act provides fresh oversight for the FCC’s Broadband Funding Map to ensure the Map is functioning effectively, efficiently, and transparently as possible for the public, federal agencies, and broadband providers alike.

    To meet this goal, the bill:
     

    1. Directs the FCC to conduct a Notice of Inquiry on the Map’s function and data it displays for maximum usability, assessing any necessary updates from a user-experience perspective, and 
    1. Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate how well federal agencies are populating the Map in compliance with current law, identifying any gaps in reporting for its optimum functionality. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: “Free Money” Gang Members Indicted for Committing Murder at Local Shopping Center

    Source: US State of Vermont

    Two alleged members of Free Money, a violent Houston-based street gang, were indicted yesterday in the Southern District of Texas for their alleged roles in the murder of one individual and attempted murder of another during a gang-related ambush.

    According to court documents, Free Money members and associates engage in robbery, home invasions, drug distribution, and murder. The defendants, Terry Ardoin, 24, and Travonte Ardoin, 27, both of Houston, allegedly committed the murder in connection with an ongoing gang war with a rival group.

    On June 24, 2022, in broad daylight, surveillance footage captured the Ardoins following a Chevrolet Equinox into a shopping center parking lot in a Black Nissan Altima. As alleged in court documents, the driver of the Equinox entered a nearby store while the passenger remained in the vehicle. When the driver returned, the Ardoins allegedly exited the Altima wearing masks and opened fire on both individuals.

    Witnesses reported hearing numerous gunshots and described the distinct sound of a fully automatic weapon, believed to have been modified with a machine gun conversion device commonly referred to as a “switch.” 

    Multiple rounds struck the vehicle’s passenger compartment. Houston Police Department officers responded within minutes and found one victim deceased.

    Terry and Travonte Ardoin are charged with murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and causing death through the use of a firearm. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of life in prison or a death sentence. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    The FBI conducted the investigation with the assistance of the Houston Police Department.

    Trial Attorney Ralph Paradiso of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section (VCRS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Brown for the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.

    This case is part of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime Initiative to prosecute violent crimes in Houston. The Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas have partnered, along with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, to confront violent crimes committed by gang members and associates through the enforcement of federal laws and use of federal resources to prosecute the violent offenders and prevent further violence.

    An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Two Men Charged For Nationwide Fraud Scheme Targeting Hundreds Of Elderly Victims

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Jingbin Jiang and Su Jian Liu Are Charged With Participating in a Scheme That Attempted to Steal Over $18 Million From Over 350 Victims

    United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton; Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia; and Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), Jessica S. Tisch,  announced charges against JINGBIN JIANG and SU JIAN LIU, a/k/a “Fatty,” a/k/a “Ah Pang,” for a scheme to defraud elderly victims across the United States, which attempted to steal over $18 million from over 350 victims and resulted in actual losses of over $5 million to over 70 victims.  JIANG was arrested in Staten Island this morning and will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.  LIU is still at large.  The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

    “As alleged, Jingbin Jiang and Su Jian Liu worked together with others to steal the hard-earned money of some our most vulnerable New Yorkers and others around the country,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.  “Taking advantage of our elderly after they have worked so hard to save and contributed so much to our city and this country is heartless and despicable.  These charges, and the efforts of the FBI and the NYPD, should serve as a warning to fraudsters and cybercriminals: New Yorkers want you held accountable for your crimes, and the women and men of our Office are committed to doing so.”

    “Jingbin Jiang and Su Jian Liu allegedly defrauded elderly victims of more than $5 million by utilizing extortionate tactics to coerce withdrawals of significant cash or purchases of gold,” said FBI Assistant Director Christopher G. Raia.  “This alleged conspiracy wielded fear of bankruptcy and arrest to ensure victims complied with the unlawful requests for money.  The FBI is committed to apprehending any individual who utilizes online platforms to target and exploit vulnerable victims across the country.”

    “These defendants allegedly led a nationwide fraud scheme with the goal of targeting innocent, elderly victims and stealing millions of their hard-earned savings,” said NYPD Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch.  “Jingbin Jiang and Su Jian Liu allegedly participated in a plot involving elaborate, fictitious narratives to manipulate elderly victims and trick them into participating in their scheme, which involved attempts to steal over $18 million from 350 people.  I am grateful to the members of the NYPD, FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for holding these alleged predatory fraudsters accountable.”

    According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]

    Between at least in or about 2023 and in or about July 2025, JIANG and LIU participated with others in a fraudulent scheme that primarily targeted elderly victims located all across the United States, including in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, California, Connecticut, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi, Kentucky, Utah, Oregon, Colorado, and Montana.

    The scheme proceeded in the following manner: First, victims would typically see a pop-up message on their computers indicating that they needed to call a particular phone number controlled by members of the scheme.  The pop-up message would typically claim to come from a technology company, a bank, or the government.  Second, when victims called the phone number, they were told a fictitious narrative that would ultimately lead to a suggestion that the victims withdraw money from their bank account.  For example, some victims were falsely told that their computers had a virus, or that their computers had been hacked into and used to commit serious crimes, like downloading child sexual abuse material.  Others were falsely told that their bank accounts had been compromised and were vulnerable to unauthorized withdrawals.  To avoid arrest or protect their bank accounts from being compromised, victims were instructed to withdraw large amounts of cash from their bank accounts or purchase large quantities of gold.  Some victims were even told that their money would be safely held in the custody of a consumer protection agency like the Federal Trade Commission, and they were sent notices on fake federal government letterhead purporting to bear the signature of a federal government official:

    Third, many victims were told that a courier would be arriving at their home (or other coordinated pick-up location) to retrieve the gold and/or cash.  Victims were often provided with the courier’s name (which was fictitious), a description of the courier’s clothing, and sometimes a password, purportedly to ensure the courier was authorized to pick up the gold and/or cash.  Other victims were told to purchase and transfer cryptocurrency or gift cards, which did not require a courier.  Victims were typically under the impression that this gold and/or cash would then be deposited, on the victims’ behalf, into a new, safe, uncompromised bank account (or with the Federal Trade Commission, as noted above) that they could access without concern in the future.  In reality, these funds were stolen and never returned to the victims.  Some victims engaged in multiple transactions before realizing the fraudulent nature of the scheme.

    JIANG and LIU participated in the scheme by managing and supervising the couriers that traveled to meet the victims to pick up the cash and gold, which was then transported back to New York City.  JIANG and LIU received information about potential victims from other members of the scheme on text-messaging platforms, in messages that typically included the zip codes and the amounts of cash or gold to be collected from each victim. JIANG and LIU could then decide whether to accept the pick-up, and if they did, the other members of the scheme would provide more specific details about the victim and when and where to pick up the cash or gold.  After arranging for couriers to make the pick-ups, JIANG and LIU would provide updates to other members of the scheme about the couriers’ progress.  After the victims provided the criminal proceeds to the couriers, JIANG and LIU arranged for the criminal proceeds to be distributed to other members of the scheme, including by converting cash and gold into cryptocurrency to be easily transmitted to members of the scheme located overseas, including in India and China.  In total, members of the conspiracy have attempted to steal at least approximately $18 million from over 350 victims, and they have successfully stolen at least approximately $5 million from over 70 victims.

    If you or someone you know has been victimized by this scheme, please file a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, which is available at ic3.gov.

    *                *                *

    JIANG, 37, of Staten Island, New York, and LIU, 38 of Edmond, Oklahoma, are both charged with one count of wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

    The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

    Mr. Clayton praised the investigative work of the FBI and NYPD’s Joint Organized Crime Task Force.  Mr. Clayton also thanked the New York State Police and the Bedford Police Department for their assistance in the investigation of this case.

    This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent & Organized Crime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew K. Chan and Angela Zhu are in charge of the prosecution. 

    The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

    [1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Bloods Gang Member Apprehended in Durham in Possession of a Firearm while on Post-Release Supervision Sentenced

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    GREENSBORO – A Durham, North Carolina man was sentenced today in Greensboro to 8 years in prison after pleading guilty to a firearm charge, announced United States Attorney Clifton T. Barrett of the Middle District of North Carolina (MDNC).   

    WILLIAM LOVELL HARPER, age 26, was sentenced to a total of 96 months imprisonment plus 3 years of post-release supervision by the Honorable William L. Osteen, Jr., United States District Judge for the MDNC.

    According to court records, on September 4, 2024, officers apprehended HARPER on Hillsborough Road in Durham and recovered a loaded handgun from his person. At the time of his apprehension, HARPER had three active warrants for his arrest, including one stemming from a robbery in Durham on March 2024 and another for violating his post-release supervision. HARPER had been previously convicted of Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in Beaufort County in 2017, as well as Conspiracy to Commit Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill in Craven County in 2018. Thus, at the time of the instant offense, HARPER was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.

    In 2023, HARPER admitted that he was a member of the Bloods criminal street gang.

    In April of this year, HARPER was convicted of Robbery of a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Firearm by a Felon in Durham County for conduct occurring on March 28, 2024. He received a sentence of 11 to 146 months. 60 months of today’s federal sentence will run consecutively to HARPER’s state sentence.

    HARPER pleaded guilty on April 10, 2025, to one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).

    The case was investigated by the Durham Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Valuable assistance was provided by the Durham County District Attorney’s Office. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Eric Iverson.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Previously Convicted Felon Sentenced for Possession of Pistol While on Pretrial Release

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

                WASHINGTON – Andre Jamar Turman, 34, of the District of Columbia, was sentenced today to 28 months in federal prison for being a previously convicted felon in possession of a loaded Haskell Model JS-45 pistol while he was on probation and on pretrial release for multiple cases, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

                Turman pleaded guilty on Dec. 17, 2024, to the indictment charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. In addition to the 28-month prison term, U.S. District Court Judge Jia M. Cobb ordered Turman to serve three years of supervised release.

                Joining in the announcement were U.S. Marshal Robert Dixon of D.C. Superior Court, Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood of the Washington Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Chief Pamela A. Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

                According to court documents, on May 4, 2023, Deputy U.S. Marshals and MPD detectives were searching for Turman due to numerous bench warrants out of D.C. Superior Court as well as an outstanding arrest warrant.

                At about 11:30 a.m., officers spotted and arrested Turman on the 2400 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, near Twining Square Park. A Deputy U.S. Marshal patted down the right front pants pocket and recovered a loaded Haskell Model JS-45 pistol. The firearm was not registered in the District of Columbia. In addition, the firearm previously had been reported as stolen.

                Turman was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he had been previously convicted of carrying a pistol without a license and sentenced to more than a year in prison. 

                At the time of his arrest, he was on probation and pretrial release for multiple cases—including release in another firearm case in Maryland.

                This case was investigated by the ATF, MPD, and U.S. Marshals. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Shezhad Akhtar and Chrisellen Rebecca Kolb.

    23cr171

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: New Haven Man Sentenced to More than 6 Years in Federal Prison for Fentanyl Trafficking Offense

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that JESUS SEGUINOT, also known as “Chuchi,” 35, of New Haven, was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in Bridgeport to 78 months of imprisonment for his role in a fentanyl trafficking conspiracy.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, on June 25, 2020, Seguinot was sentenced in New Haven federal court to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for drug distribution and gun possession offenses.  He was released from federal prison in May 2021.  In October 2021, the FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force learned that Luis Salaman, also known as “Bebe,” was distributing large quantities of narcotics throughout New Haven.  The investigation revealed that Salaman worked with Seguinot and others to distribute fentanyl.  Between November 2021 and March 2022, investigators made multiple controlled purchases of distribution quantities of fentanyl from Salaman, Seguinot, and their associates.  Investigators also learned that Seguinot possessed a firearm during that time.

    Seguinot was arrested on April 10, 2023.

    On December 19, 2024, a jury found Seguinot and Salaman guilty of conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, and Salaman guilty of three counts of possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of, 40 grams or more of fentanyl. 

    Seguinot’s criminal history also includes state convictions for drug distribution and weapon possession offenses.

    Seguinot has been detained since January 2, 2025.

    Salaman, who has been detained since his arrest on April 5, 2022, awaits sentencing.

    This investigation has been conducted by FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force, which includes members from the FBI, the Connecticut State Police, the Connecticut Department of Correction, and the New Haven, Milford, East Haven, West Haven, and Wallingford Police Departments.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David T. Huang.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Andover Man Pleads Guilty for Producing and Possessing Child Sexual Abuse Images

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CONCORD – An Andover man pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court for producing and possessing child sexual abuse material (CSAM), Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

    Dale Howe, age 37, pleaded guilty in federal court to three counts of Production of Child Pornography and one count of Possession of Child Pornography. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Barbadoro scheduled sentencing for November 5, 2025.

    According to the charging documents and statements made in court, the defendant provided the minor victim with drugs and sexually assaulted the minor victim. The defendant created images of the sexual abuse, which were found during a search of his phone. The defendant distributed at least three of the child sexual abuse images through a social media platform. The defendant was also in possession of more than 3,500 files of unrelated CSAM.

    The charges for Production of Child Pornography provide for a sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release of at least 5 years. The charge for Possession of Child Pornography provides for a sentence with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release of at least 5 years. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.

    Homeland Security Investigations, the Andover Police Department, and the New Hampshire State Police, the Merrimack County Sheriff’s Office, New Hampshire Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) and the Derry Police Department provided valuable assistance. Assistant U.S Attorneys Heather A. Cherniske and Anna Z. Krasinski are prosecuting the case.

     

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Distribution of Child Pornography

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    WACO – A Mississippi man was sentenced in federal court to 240 months in prison for distribution of child pornography, involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.

    According to court documents, Foster Denzel Harris, aided and abetted by another, knowingly distributed and attempted to distribute visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of federal statute.

    In 2022, the victim in this case reported to FBI that she had been exploited when she was 16 years old, and living in Killeen, Texas. Between 2016 and 2022, while using KiK social media application on her phone, Harris extorted $21,000 dollars from her, threatening to expose her if she didn’t pay.

    “Today’s sentencing sends a clear message that those who exploit children by distributing child sexual abuse material will be held fully accountable,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Aron Tapp. “The pain these victims silently endure is immeasurable, and the FBI will relentlessly pursue anyone who preys on them. We applaud the extraordinary courage of the victim in this case, whose fortitude to come forward enabled us to obtain a measure of justice and put a stop to the continues abuse. If you have information about child exploitation, contact your local FBI office or submit a tip at tips.fbi.gov.”

    This 20-year sentence is the maximum sentence allowed under the statute. Harris was also ordered to pay $31,429.00 in restitution to the victim and placed on lifetime supervised release. This case was investigated by the FBI San Antonio Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Gloff prosecuted the case.

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

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: “Free Money” gang members indicted for committing murder at local shopping center

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    HOUSTON – Two alleged members of a violent Houston-based street gang have been charged for their alleged roles in the murder of one individual and attempted murder of another during a gang-related ambush.

    According to court documents, members and associates of the gang known as Free Money engage in robbery, home invasions, drug distribution and murder. Terry Ardoin, 24, and Travonte Ardoin, 27, both of Houston, allegedly committed the murder in connection with an ongoing gang war with a rival group.

    On June 24, 2022, in broad daylight, the Ardoins allegedly following a Chevrolet Equinox into a shopping center parking lot in a Black Nissan Altima. As alleged in court documents, the driver of the Equinox entered a nearby store while the passenger remained in the vehicle. When the driver returned, the Ardoins allegedly exited the Altima wearing masks and opened fired on both individuals.

    Multiple rounds struck the vehicle’s passenger compartment. Law enforcement responded within minutes and found one victim deceased.

    Terry and Travonte Ardoin are charged with murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and causing death through the use of a firearm. If convicted, they face up to life in prison or the possibility of a death sentence.

    The FBI conducted the investigation with the assistance of Houston Police Department.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Brown is prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorney Ralph Paradiso of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section.

    This case is part of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime Initiative to prosecute violent crimes in Houston. The Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas have partnered, along with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, to confront violent crimes gang members and associates have committed through the enforcement of federal laws and use of federal resources to prosecute violent offenders and prevent further violence.

    An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy Introduces Legislation to Crack Down on Money Laundering, Terror Financing in Art Market

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) introduced the Art Market Integrity Act to require art dealers and auction houses to comply with anti-money-laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Currently, the art market, a $25 billion industry in the United States and the largest of its kind globally, is one of the last major markets not required to meet these standards, making it vulnerable to exploitation by criminals, terrorist financiers, and other sanctioned individuals.
    “Criminals and terrorists use art sales to fund their crimes,” said Dr. Cassidy. “We have similar rules for jewelry, precious metals, real estate, and more. Let’s do it for art too.”
    Cassidy was joined by U.S. Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), David McCormick (R-PA), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) in introducing the legislation. 
    Background
    In recent years, the U.S. Department of the Treasury identified the art market as particularly susceptible to money laundering and sanctions evasion. High-profile cases have spotlighted the urgent need for reform, including the indictment of Hezbollah financier Nazem Ahmad using art as part of his scheme to launder over $160 million. Multiple Kremlin cronies have used art to evade sanctions: Arkady and Boris Rotenberg used $18 million worth of art to get around sanctions, Roman Abramovich transferred almost $1 billion in art to his wife ahead of new sanctions, and last year the DOJ indicted Anastasia Simes for laundering money on behalf of sanctioned Kremlin crony Aleksander Udadov.
    The bill is endorsed by the Antiquities Coalition, Transparency International U.S., the FACT Coalition, FDD Action, the American Jewish Committee, Razom for Ukraine, American Coalition for Ukraine, the Initiative for the Recovery of Venezuelan Assets(INRAV), the National Border Patrol Council, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA).

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: State of Emergency Ahead of Heavy Rainfall

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today will declare a State of Emergency for several New York counties and urges New Yorkers to prepare for heavy rain and the potential for localized flooding, as parts of the state are forecast to be impacted by periods of heavy rain today into Friday. Beginning this afternoon, torrential rain is forecast to impact downstate New York, primarily in the Mid-Hudson, New York City, and Long Island Regions. With the forecast enhanced to moderate risk, flash flooding becomes more likely with significant flooding possible. Flood Watches in Place for New York City, Long Island, and Hudson Valley through Friday afternoon. Significant rainfall is also expected in the Southern Tier and Capital Regions. Roadway and rail travel will be impacted during the Thursday evening commute, and employers in the affected areas are recommended to release employers early to avoid long delays and ensure safe travel home.

    The State of Emergency includes the Bronx, Delaware, Dutchess, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, Sullivan, Ulster, Westchester and contiguous counties. The State released non-essential employees in New York City, Sullivan, Rockland, Orange, Ulster, Dutchess, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties at 1:00 p.m.

    “I am urging all New Yorkers to stay vigilant, stay informed, and use caution as we expect excessive rainfall with the potential for flash flooding,” Governor Hochul said. “State agencies are on standby for heavy downpours and localized flooding and will be monitoring the situation in real-time to ensure the safety of all New Yorkers in the path of the storm.”

    A widespread one to three inches of rain is expected with locally higher totals up to five inches possible. Average rainfall rates of a half inch per hour are expected with rates of one to two inches likely. Isolated rates over two inches per hour are possible, most likely Thursday afternoon or evening. Most of the rain will fall in as little as three to six hours from Thursday afternoon through Thursday night. Up to two inches of rain may impact the Southern Tier, Capital Region, and Upper Mid-Hudson Regions.

    The Thursday evening commute will be impacted with areas of flash flooding possible and minor to moderate water level rises could occur on some waterways. Some roads may become impassable from flooding, most likely around underpasses and roads with little or no drainage. The heaviest rainfall rates may be capable of producing subway flooding and overwhelming NYC sewers. Flooding in basements and subterrain floors is also possible.

    Residents are encouraged to monitor their local forecasts, weather watches and warnings. For a complete listing of weather alerts, visit the National Weather Service website at alerts.weather.gov.

    New Yorkers should ensure that government emergency alerts are enabled on their mobile phones. They should also sign up for real-time weather and emergency alerts that will be texted to their phones by texting their county or borough name to 333111.

    Agency Preparations

    Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services

    The Division’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is in contact with their local counterparts and is prepared to facilitate requests for assistance. OEM is in enhanced monitoring status and the Office of Fire Prevention and Control has activated the State Fire Operations Center.

    Water rescue teams from the Office of Fire Prevention and Control, New York State Police and Department of Environmental Conservation are staged in Orange County and Ulster Counties.

    State stockpiles are ready to deploy emergency response assets and supplies as needed. The State Watch Center is monitoring the storm track and statewide impacts closely.

    Department of Transportation

    The State Department of Transportation is monitoring weather conditions and prepared to respond with 3,428 supervisors and operators available statewide. All field staff are available to fully engage and respond.

    Statewide equipment numbers are as follows:

    • 1,430 large dump trucks
    • 337 large loaders
    • 92 chippers
    • 87 tracked and wheeled excavators
    • 33 water pumps
    • 32 traffic and tree crew bucket trucks
    • 28 traffic tower platforms
    • 16 vacuum trucks with sewer jets

    The need for additional resources will be re-evaluated as conditions warrant throughout the event. For real-time travel information, motorists should call 511 or visit 511ny.org, New York State’s official traffic and travel information source.

    Thruway Authority

    The Thruway Authority has 669 operators and supervisors prepared to respond to any wind or flood related issues across the state with small to medium sized excavators, plow/dump trucks, large loaders, portable Variable Message Signs (VMS) boards, portable light towers, smaller generators, smaller pumps and equipment hauling trailers, as well as signage and other traffic control devices available for any detours or closures. VMS and social media are utilized to alert motorists of weather conditions on the Thruway.

    Statewide equipment numbers are as follows:

    • 337 Large and Small Dump Trucks
    • 63 Loaders
    • 31 Trailers
    • 5 Vac Trucks
    • 14 Excavators
    • 8 Brush Chippers
    • 99 Chainsaws
    • 24 Aerial Trucks
    • 22 Skid Steers
    • 86 Portable Generators
    • 65 Portable Light Units

    The Thruway Authority encourages motorists to download its mobile app which is available to download for free on iPhone and Android devices. The app provides motorists direct access to live traffic cameras, real-time traffic information and navigation assistance while on the go. Motorists can also sign up for TRANSalert e-mails which provide the latest traffic conditions along the Thruway, follow @ThruwayTraffic on X, and visit thruway.ny.gov to see an interactive map showing traffic conditions for the Thruway and other New York State roadways.

    Department of Public Service

    New York’s utilities have approximately 5,500 workers available statewide to engage in damage assessment, response, repair and restoration efforts across New York State, as necessary. The utilities will work with the local, county, and state transportation agencies to navigate closed roadways in any areas experiencing flooding. Agency staff will track utilities’ work throughout the event and ensure utilities shift appropriate staffing to regions that experience the greatest impact.

    New York State Police

    State Police instructed all Troopers to remain vigilant and will deploy extra patrols to affected areas as needed. All four-wheel drive vehicles are in service, and all watercraft and specialty vehicles are staged and ready for deployment.

    Department of Environmental Conservation

    The Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Emergency Management staff, Environmental Conservation Police Officers, Forest Rangers, and regional staff remain on alert and continue to monitor weather forecasts. Working with partner agencies, DEC is prepared to coordinate resource deployment of all available assets, including first responders, to targeted areas in preparation for potential impacts due to heavy rainfall and flooding.

    DEC swift water teams are activated and pre-staged in the Hudson Valley.

    DEC reminds local officials to watch for potential flooding in their communities. Municipalities are encouraged to undertake local assessments of flood-prone areas and to remove any accumulating debris. DEC permits and authorization are not required to remove debris unless stream banks or beds will be disturbed by debris removal and/or the use of heavy equipment. Municipalities and local governments are advised to contact DEC’s Regional Permit Administrators if assistance is required and to help determine if a permit is necessary.

    If a permit is necessary, DEC can issue Emergency Authorizations to expedite approval of projects in place of an individual permit. DEC approves Emergency Authorizations for situations that are deemed an emergency based on the immediate protection of life, health, general welfare, property, or natural resources.

    Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

    New York State Park Police and park personnel are on alert and closely monitoring weather conditions and impacts. Park visitors should visit parks.ny.gov, check the free mobile app, or call their local park office for the latest updates regarding park hours, openings and closings.

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is closely monitoring weather conditions to ensure safe, reliable service. MTA employees will be poised to respond to any weather-related issues. To reduce the likelihood of flooding and respond to any instances of flooding, MTA crews will inspect drains in flood-prone areas to ensure they are functional, and supervisors will monitor flood-prone locations for any reports of flooding to ensure quick response. Elevator and escalator specialists will be deployed to flood-prone locations to attend to any weather-related elevator and escalator troubles.

    Customers are encouraged to check mta.info for the latest service updates, and to use caution while navigating the system. Customers should also sign up for real-time service alerts via text or email. These alerts are also available via the MTA app and the TrainTime app.

    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is closely monitoring weather forecasts and is working with airport terminal operators and other airport partners in preparation. Air travelers should check with their airlines for updated information on their flights or check the Federal Aviation Administration website for any FAA programs that may affect flight operations at their departure airport before leaving for the airport and allow for additional travel time. Motorists who use the Port Authority’s six bridges and tunnels are strongly encouraged to sign up for email alerts, bus riders can use the MyTerminal app for real-time alerts on bus service at the Midtown Bus Terminal, or for PATH riders, check train service information via the PATH mobile app, RidePATH.

    Before and During the Storm

    • Stay Informed: Monitor your local weather forecast and follow any warnings that may be broadcast.
    • Follow Instructions from Local Officials: If you are advised by emergency officials to take immediate action such as evacuation, do not wait – follow all orders promptly.
    • Do Not Walk, Swim or Drive Through Floodwaters: One foot of moving water can sweep a vehicle away. If you have doubts, remember: “Turn Around, Don’t Drown!”
    • Know your evacuation route and how to get to higher ground
    • Know your area’s type of flood risk — visit FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center.
    • Have a flood emergency plan in place that includes considerations for your children, pets and neighbors.
    • Have an emergency go bag ready to grab for you, your family and your pets that includes any medications you may need.
    • Check in with elderly neighbors or those who may have mobility issues.
    • Do not touch downed power lines
    • Keep your phone charged
    • Keep a small disaster supply kit in the trunk of your car.

    After Flood Waters Have Receded

    • Wait until an area has been declared safe before entering. Be careful driving, since roads may be damaged and power lines may be down.
    • If your home or apartment has been flooded, DO NOT turn on electrical appliances until an electrician has checked the system and appliances.
    • Throw out any medicine or food that may have had contact with flood waters.
    • Keep your automobile fueled. If electric power is cut off, gasoline stations may not be able to pump fuel for several days.
    • Do not touch downed power lines.

    For more preparedness information and safety tips from DHSES, visit dhses.ny.gov. The National Weather Service website also includes Flood Safety Tips and Spring Safety Resources.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Attorney’s Office To Participate In Community Events During National Night Out

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Federal prosecutors and personnel with the U.S. Attorney’s Office will join community organizers, local neighborhoods, and law enforcement partners in the Western District for National Night Out on Tuesday, August 5, 2025.

    National Night Out (NNO) is an annual community-building campaign that promotes partnerships and camaraderie between law enforcement and the communities they serve to make our neighborhoods safer places to live. Millions take part in National Night Out across thousands of communities throughout the country on the first Tuesday of August in most areas of the country.

    During this year’s National Night Out, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will attend community events in Charlotte organized by the West Boulevard Neighborhood Coalition and the Hidden Valley Community Association, to engage with community members, answer questions, and share information about federal public safety initiatives. Representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office will also be at Stumpton Park in Matthews and the Kenilworth Forest neighborhood in Asheville.

    “Our communities are safer when law enforcement and neighborhoods work together to prevent and address crime,” said U.S. Attorney Russ Ferguson.  “That’s the point of National Night Out, and we are proud to join our law enforcement partners and communities across the district on this special night.”

    National Night Out was established in 1984 with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice. The program is administered by the National Association of Town Watch, a nationwide non-profit organization.

    Coordinated by local law enforcement and trained volunteers, National Night Out provides an opportunity to bring police and neighbors together under positive circumstances. Neighborhoods host block parties, cookouts, festivals, parades, safety demonstrations, seminars, youth events, visits from emergency personnel and more. National Night Out sends a message that neighbors are united and working together to keep their communities and each other safe.

    For more information, visit https://natw.org/

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Berkeley County Man Sentenced for Drug Trafficking and Firearms Charges

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA – Travis Jackson Latta, 38, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, was sentenced to 235 months in federal prison for the unlawful possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute eutylone.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, officers were responding to a domestic violence call and encountered Latta with a firearm. He is prohibited from possessing firearms because of prior convictions for kidnapping, strangulation, brandishing, attempted murder, domestic battery and assault, and unlawful restraint. Latta, during a separate investigation, was also found in possession of eutylone, known as “Boot,” which he intended to unlawfully distribute.

    Latta will serve 15 years of supervised release following his prison sentence.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Omps-Botteicher prosecuted the case on behalf of the government.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Eastern Panhandle Drug Task Force, a HIDTA-funded initiative; and the Martinsburg Police Department investigated.

    U.S. District Judge Gina M. Groh presided.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Credit Acceptance Announces Second Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Southfield, Michigan, July 31, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Credit Acceptance Corporation (Nasdaq: CACC) (referred to as the “Company”, “Credit Acceptance”, “we”, “our”, or “us”) today announced consolidated net income of $87.4 million, or $7.42 per diluted share, for the three months ended June 30, 2025. Adjusted net income, a non-GAAP financial measure, for the three months ended June 30, 2025 was $100.8 million, or $8.56 per diluted share. The following table summarizes our financial results:

    (In millions, except per share data)   For the Three Months Ended
        June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024
    GAAP net income (loss)   $         87.4    $         106.3    $         (47.1)  
    GAAP net income (loss) per diluted share   $         7.42    $         8.66    $         (3.83)  
                 
    Adjusted net income   $         100.8    $         114.8    $         126.4   
    Adjusted net income per diluted share   $         8.56    $         9.35    $         10.29   

    Our results and achievements for the second quarter of 2025 included the following:

    • A decline in forecasted collection rates, which decreased forecasted net cash flows from our loan portfolio by $55.8 million, or 0.5%, and slower forecasted net cash flow timing.
    • A 6.8% increase in the average balance of our loan portfolio from the second quarter of 2024 to $8.0 billion, which is our largest ever.
    • A decline in Consumer Loan assignment unit and dollar volumes of 14.6% and 18.8%, respectively, as compared to the second quarter of 2024.
    • The repurchase of approximately 530,000 shares, or 4.5% of the shares outstanding at the beginning of the quarter.
    • The enrollment of 1,560 new dealers with 10,655 active dealers during the quarter.
    • $63.3 million in dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback payments to dealers.
    • $23.4 million contingent loss related to previously disclosed legal matters.
    • An increase in our estimated long-term effective income tax rate from 23% to 25%.
    • Named one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For® by Great Place to Work® and Fortune magazine for the eleventh time, with a #34 ranking, and a Spring 2025 Top Workplaces Culture Excellence award winner in the following five categories: Work-Life Flexibility, Leadership, Innovation, Purpose & Values, and Compensation & Benefits.

    Consumer Loan Metrics

    Dealers assign retail installment contracts (referred to as “Consumer Loans”) to Credit Acceptance. At the time a Consumer Loan is submitted to us for assignment, we forecast future expected cash flows from the Consumer Loan. Based on the amount and timing of these forecasts and expected expense levels, an advance or one-time purchase payment is made to the related dealer at a price designed to maximize economic profit, a non-GAAP financial measure that considers our return on capital, our cost of capital, and the amount of capital invested. 

    We use a statistical model to estimate the expected collection rate for each Consumer Loan at the time of assignment. We continue to evaluate the expected collection rate for each Consumer Loan subsequent to assignment. Our evaluation becomes more accurate as the Consumer Loans age, as we use actual performance data in our forecast. By comparing our current expected collection rate for each Consumer Loan with the rate we projected at the time of assignment, we are able to assess the accuracy of our initial forecast. The following table compares our aggregated forecast of Consumer Loan collection rates as of June 30, 2025, with the aggregated forecasts as of March 31, 2025 and at the time of assignment, segmented by year of assignment:

        Forecasted Collection Percentage as of (1)   Current Forecast Variance from
     Consumer Loan Assignment Year   June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   Initial
    Forecast    		   March 31, 2025   Initial
    Forecast
    2016           63.9  %           63.9  %           65.4  %           0.0  %           -1.5  %
    2017           64.8  %           64.8  %           64.0  %           0.0  %           0.8  %
    2018           65.6  %           65.5  %           63.6  %           0.1  %           2.0  %
    2019           67.3  %           67.2  %           64.0  %           0.1  %           3.3  %
    2020           68.0  %           67.9  %           63.4  %           0.1  %           4.6  %
    2021           63.8  %           63.9  %           66.3  %           -0.1  %           -2.5  %
    2022           59.7  %           60.0  %           67.5  %           -0.3  %           -7.8  %
    2023           64.1  %           64.3  %           67.5  %           -0.2  %           -3.4  %
    2024           65.7  %           66.3  %           67.2  %           -0.6  %           -1.5  %
         2025 (2)           66.9  %           66.0  %           66.9  %           0.9  %           0.0  %

    (1)   Represents the total forecasted collections we expect to collect on the Consumer Loans as a percentage of the repayments that we were contractually owed on the Consumer Loans at the time of assignment. Contractual repayments include both principal and interest. Forecasted collection rates are negatively impacted by canceled Consumer Loans as the contractual amount owed is not removed from the denominator for purposes of computing forecasted collection rates.
    (2)   The forecasted collection rate for 2025 Consumer Loans as of June 30, 2025 includes both Consumer Loans that were in our portfolio as of March 31, 2025 and Consumer Loans assigned during the most recent quarter. The following table provides forecasted collection rates for each of these segments

        Forecasted Collection Percentage as of   Current Forecast Variance from
    2025 Consumer Loan Assignment Period   June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   Initial
    Forecast    		   March 31, 2025   Initial
    Forecast
    January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025           66.2  %           66.0  %           66.2  %           0.2  %           0.0  %
    April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025           67.7  %           —              67.7  %           —              0.0  %

    For the three months ended June 30, 2025, forecasted collection rates improved for Consumer Loans assigned in 2025, declined for Consumer Loans assigned in 2022 through 2024, and were generally consistent with expectations at the start of the period for all other assignment years presented.

    The changes to our forecast of future net cash flows from our Loan portfolio (forecasted collections less forecasted dealer holdback payments) for each of the last eight quarters are shown in the following table:

    (Dollars in millions)   Decrease in Forecasted Net Cash Flows
    Three Months Ended   Total Loans   % Change from Forecast at Beginning of Period
    September 30, 2023   $         (69.4)             -0.7  %
    December 31, 2023             (57.0)             -0.6  %
    March 31, 2024             (30.8)             -0.3  %
    June 30, 2024             (189.3)             -1.7  %
    September 30, 2024             (62.8)             -0.6  %
    December 31, 2024             (31.1)             -0.3  %
    March 31, 2025             (20.9)             -0.2  %
    June 30, 2025             (55.8)             -0.5  %

    During the second quarter of 2025, we applied an adjustment to our methodology for forecasting the amount of future net cash flows from our loan portfolio, which reduced the forecasted collection rates for Consumer Loans assigned in 2024. Consumer Loans assigned in 2024 prior to the implementation of our scorecard adjustment during the third quarter of 2024 had underperformed relative to the forecast adjustment we implemented during the second quarter of 2024. Accordingly, in the second quarter of 2025, we applied an adjustment to that segment of the Consumer Loans assigned in 2024 to reduce forecasted collection rates to what we believed the ultimate collection rates would be based on these trends. Changes in the amount and timing of forecasted net cash flows are recognized in the period of change as a provision for credit losses. The implementation of this forecast adjustment during the second quarter of 2025 reduced forecasted net cash flows by $18.6 million, or 0.2%, and increased provision for credit losses by $16.5 million.

    The following table presents information on Consumer Loan assignments for each of the last 10 years:

         Average   Total Assignment Volume
     Consumer Loan
    Assignment Year    		   Consumer Loan (1)   Advance (2)   Initial Loan Term (in months)   Unit Volume   Dollar Volume (2)
    (in millions)
    2016   $         18,218   $         7,976   53   330,710   $         2,635.5
    2017     20,230     8,746   55   328,507     2,873.1
    2018     22,158     9,635   57   373,329     3,595.8
    2019     23,139     10,174   57   369,805     3,772.2
    2020     24,262     10,656   59   341,967     3,641.2
    2021     25,632     11,790   59   268,730     3,167.8
    2022     27,242     12,924   60   280,467     3,625.3
    2023     27,025     12,475   61   332,499     4,147.8
    2024     26,497     11,961   61   386,126     4,618.4
               2025 (3) (4)     25,376     11,362   60   185,764     2,110.7

    (1)   Represents the repayments that we were contractually owed on Consumer Loans at the time of assignment, which include both principal and interest.
    (2)   Represents advances paid to dealers on Consumer Loans assigned under the portfolio program and one-time payments made to dealers to purchase Consumer Loans assigned under the purchase program. Payments of dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback are not included.
    (3)   Represents activity for the six months ended June 30, 2025. Information in this table for each of the years prior to 2025 represents activity for all 12 months of that year.
    (4)   The averages for 2025 Consumer Loans include both Consumer Loans that were in our portfolio as of March 31, 2025 and Consumer Loans assigned during the most recent quarter. The following table provides averages for each of these segments:

        Average
    2025 Consumer Loan Assignment Period   Consumer Loan   Advance   Initial Loan Term (in months)
    January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025   $         25,188   $         11,096           60
    April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025             25,596             11,674           60

    The profitability of our loans is primarily driven by the amount and timing of the net cash flows we receive from the spread between the forecasted collection rate and the advance rate, less operating expenses and the cost of capital. Forecasting collection rates accurately at loan inception is difficult. With this in mind, we establish advance rates that are intended to allow us to achieve acceptable levels of profitability across our portfolio, even if collection rates are less than we initially forecast.
    The following table presents aggregate forecasted Consumer Loan collection rates, advance rates, and spreads (the forecasted collection rate less the advance rate), and the percentage of the forecasted collections that had been realized as of June 30, 2025, as well as forecasted collection rates and spreads at the time of assignment. All amounts, unless otherwise noted, are presented as a percentage of the initial balance of the Consumer Loan (principal + interest). The table includes both dealer loans and purchased loans.

        Forecasted Collection % as of       Spread % as of    
     Consumer Loan Assignment Year   June 30, 2025   Initial Forecast   Advance % (1)   June 30, 2025   Initial Forecast   % of Forecast
    Realized (2)
    2016           63.9  %           65.4  %           43.8  %           20.1  %           21.6  %           99.6  %
    2017           64.8  %           64.0  %           43.2  %           21.6  %           20.8  %           99.4  %
    2018           65.6  %           63.6  %           43.5  %           22.1  %           20.1  %           99.0  %
    2019           67.3  %           64.0  %           44.0  %           23.3  %           20.0  %           98.0  %
    2020           68.0  %           63.4  %           43.9  %           24.1  %           19.5  %           95.1  %
    2021           63.8  %           66.3  %           46.0  %           17.8  %           20.3  %           88.7  %
    2022           59.7  %           67.5  %           47.4  %           12.3  %           20.1  %           74.7  %
    2023           64.1  %           67.5  %           46.2  %           17.9  %           21.3  %           55.0  %
    2024           65.7  %           67.2  %           45.1  %           20.6  %           22.1  %           30.4  %
          2025 (3)           66.9  %           66.9  %           44.9  %           22.0  %           22.0  %           6.9  %

    (1)   Represents advances paid to dealers on Consumer Loans assigned under the portfolio program and one-time payments made to dealers to purchase Consumer Loans assigned under the purchase program as a percentage of the initial balance of the Consumer Loans.  Payments of dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback are not included.
    (2)   Presented as a percentage of total forecasted collections
    (3)   The forecasted collection rate, advance rate and spread for 2025 Consumer Loans as of June 30, 2025 include both Consumer Loans that were in our portfolio as of March 31, 2025 and Consumer Loans assigned during the most recent quarter. The following table provides forecasted collection rates, advance rates, and spreads for each of these segments:

        Forecasted Collection % as of       Spread % as of
    2025 Consumer Loan Assignment Period   June 30, 2025   Initial Forecast   Advance %   June 30, 2025   Initial Forecast
    January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025           66.2  %           66.2  %           44.2  %           22.0  %           22.0  %
    April 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025           67.7  %           67.7  %           45.7  %           22.0  %           22.0  %

    The risk of a material change in our forecasted collection rate declines as the Consumer Loans age. For 2020 and prior Consumer Loan assignments, the risk of a material forecast variance is modest, as we have currently realized in excess of 90% of the expected collections. Conversely, the forecasted collection rates for more recent Consumer Loan assignments are less certain as a significant portion of our forecast has not been realized.

    The spread between the forecasted collection rate as of June 30, 2025 and the advance rate ranges from 12.3% to 24.1%, on an annual basis, for Consumer Loans assigned over the last 10 years. The spreads with respect to 2019 and 2020 Consumer Loans have been positively impacted by Consumer Loan performance, which has exceeded our initial estimates by a greater margin than the other years presented. The spreads with respect to 2021 through 2024 Consumer Loans have been negatively impacted by Consumer Loan performance, which has been lower than our initial estimates by a greater margin than the other years presented. The higher spread for 2025 Consumer Loans relative to 2024 Consumer Loans as of June 30, 2025 was primarily a result of Consumer Loan performance, as the performance of 2024 Consumer Loans has been lower than our initial estimates.

    The following table compares our forecast of aggregate Consumer Loan collection rates as of June 30, 2025 with the forecasts at the time of assignment, for dealer loans and purchased loans separately:

        Dealer Loans   Purchased Loans
        Forecasted Collection Percentage as of (1)       Forecasted Collection Percentage as of (1)    
     Consumer Loan Assignment Year   June 30,
    2025    		   Initial
    Forecast    		   Variance   June 30,
    2025    		   Initial
    Forecast    		   Variance
    2016           63.1  %           65.1  %           -2.0  %           66.1  %           66.5  %           -0.4  %
    2017           64.1  %           63.8  %           0.3  %           66.4  %           64.6  %           1.8  %
    2018           65.0  %           63.6  %           1.4  %           66.8  %           63.5  %           3.3  %
    2019           66.9  %           63.9  %           3.0  %           67.9  %           64.2  %           3.7  %
    2020           67.8  %           63.3  %           4.5  %           68.3  %           63.6  %           4.7  %
    2021           63.6  %           66.3  %           -2.7  %           64.3  %           66.3  %           -2.0  %
    2022           58.9  %           67.3  %           -8.4  %           61.7  %           68.0  %           -6.3  %
    2023           62.9  %           66.8  %           -3.9  %           67.6  %           69.4  %           -1.8  %
    2024           64.5  %           66.3  %           -1.8  %           70.0  %           70.7  %           -0.7  %
    2025           65.4  %           65.4  %           0.0  %           71.5  %           71.5  %           0.0  %

    (1)   The forecasted collection rates presented for dealer loans and purchased loans reflect the Consumer Loan classification at the time of assignment. The forecasted collection rates represent the total forecasted collections we expect to collect on the Consumer Loans as a percentage of the repayments that we were contractually owed on the Consumer Loans at the time of assignment. Contractual repayments include both principal and interest. Forecasted collection rates are negatively impacted by canceled Consumer Loans as the contractual amount owed is not removed from the denominator for purposes of computing forecasted collection rates.

    The following table presents aggregate forecasted Consumer Loan collection rates, advance rates, and spreads (the forecasted collection rate less the advance rate) as of June 30, 2025 for dealer loans and purchased loans separately.  All amounts are presented as a percentage of the initial balance of the Consumer Loan (principal + interest).

        Dealer Loans   Purchased Loans
     Consumer Loan Assignment Year   Forecasted Collection % (1)   Advance % (1)(2)   Spread %   Forecasted Collection % (1)   Advance % (1)(2)   Spread %
    2016           63.1  %           42.1  %           21.0  %           66.1  %           48.6  %           17.5  %
    2017           64.1  %           42.1  %           22.0  %           66.4  %           45.8  %           20.6  %
    2018           65.0  %           42.7  %           22.3  %           66.8  %           45.2  %           21.6  %
    2019           66.9  %           43.1  %           23.8  %           67.9  %           45.6  %           22.3  %
    2020           67.8  %           43.0  %           24.8  %           68.3  %           45.5  %           22.8  %
    2021           63.6  %           45.1  %           18.5  %           64.3  %           47.7  %           16.6  %
    2022           58.9  %           46.4  %           12.5  %           61.7  %           50.1  %           11.6  %
    2023           62.9  %           44.8  %           18.1  %           67.6  %           49.8  %           17.8  %
    2024           64.5  %           44.1  %           20.4  %           70.0  %           48.9  %           21.1  %
    2025           65.4  %           43.1  %           22.3  %           71.5  %           50.3  %           21.2  %

    (1)   The forecasted collection rates and advance rates presented for dealer loans and purchased loans reflect the Consumer Loan classification at the time of assignment.
    (2)   Represents advances paid to dealers on Consumer Loans assigned under the portfolio program and one-time payments made to dealers to purchase Consumer Loans assigned under the purchase program as a percentage of the initial balance of the Consumer Loans.  Payments of dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback are not included.

    Although the advance rate on purchased loans is higher as compared to the advance rate on dealer loans, purchased loans do not require us to pay dealer holdback.

    The spread as of June 30, 2025 on 2025 dealer loans was 22.3%, as compared to a spread of 20.4% on 2024 dealer loans. The increase was primarily a result of Consumer Loan performance, as the performance of 2024 dealer loans has been lower than our initial estimates.

    The spread as of June 30, 2025 on 2025 purchased loans was 21.2%, as compared to a spread of 21.1% on 2024 purchased loans, reflecting the net impact of two offsetting factors. Consumer Loan performance increased the spread from 2024 to 2025, as the performance of 2024 purchased loans has been lower than our initial estimates. This impact of Consumer Loan performance was partially offset by the impact of a lower initial spread on 2025 purchased loans, due to the advance rate increasing by a greater margin than the initial forecast in our purchased loan portfolio.

    Consumer Loan Volume

    The following table summarizes changes in Consumer Loan assignment volume in each of the last eight quarters as compared to the same period in the previous year:

        Year over Year Percent Change
    Three Months Ended   Unit Volume   Dollar Volume (1)
    September 30, 2023           13.0  %           10.5  %
    December 31, 2023           26.7  %           21.3  %
    March 31, 2024           24.1  %           20.2  %
    June 30, 2024           20.9  %           16.3  %
    September 30, 2024           17.7  %           12.2  %
    December 31, 2024           0.3  %           -4.9  %
    March 31, 2025           -10.1  %           -15.5  %
    June 30, 2025           -14.6  %           -18.8  %

    (1)   Represents advances paid to dealers on Consumer Loans assigned under the portfolio program and one-time payments made to dealers to purchase Consumer Loans assigned under the purchase program.  Payments of dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback are not included.

    Consumer Loan assignment volumes depend on a number of factors including (1) the overall demand for our financing programs and (2) the amount of capital available to fund new loans. Our pricing strategy is intended to maximize the amount of economic profit we generate, within the confines of capital constraints.

    Unit and dollar volumes declined 14.6% and 18.8%, respectively, during the second quarter of 2025 as the number of active dealers declined 0.8% and the average unit volume per active dealer declined 14.0%. Dollar volume declined by more than unit volume during the second quarter of 2025 due to a decrease in the average advance paid, primarily resulting from a decrease in the average size of Consumer Loans assigned. Unit volume for the 28-day period ended July 28, 2025 decreased 19.4% compared to the same period in 2024.

    The following table summarizes the changes in Consumer Loan unit volume and active dealers:

      For the Three Months Ended June 30,    
      2025   2024   % Change
    Consumer Loan unit volume         85,486            100,057            -14.6  %
    Active dealers (1)         10,655            10,736            -0.8  %
    Average volume per active dealer         8.0            9.3            -14.0  %
               
    Consumer Loan unit volume from dealers active both periods         68,747            82,646            -16.8  %
    Dealers active both periods         6,876            6,876            —   
    Average volume per dealer active both periods         10.0            12.0            -16.8  %
               
    Consumer loan unit volume from dealers not active both periods         16,739            17,411            -3.9  %
    Dealers not active both periods         3,779            3,860            -2.1  %
    Average volume per dealer not active both periods         4.4            4.5            -2.2  %

    (1)   Active dealers are dealers who have received funding for at least one Consumer Loan during the period.

    The following table provides additional information on the changes in Consumer Loan unit volume and active dealers: 

      For the Three Months Ended June 30,    
      2025     2024     % Change
    Consumer Loan unit volume from new active dealers         3,216              3,820              -15.8  %
    New active dealers (1)         1,094              1,080              1.3  %
    Average volume per new active dealer         2.9              3.5              -17.1  %
               
    Attrition (2)         -17.4  %           -16.7  %    

    (1)   New active dealers are dealers who enrolled in our program and have received funding for their first dealer loan or purchased loan from us during the period.
    (2)   Attrition is measured according to the following formula:  decrease in Consumer Loan unit volume from dealers who have received funding for at least one dealer loan or purchased loan during the comparable period of the prior year but did not receive funding for any dealer loans or purchased loans during the current period divided by prior year comparable period Consumer Loan unit volume.

    The following table shows the percentage of Consumer Loans assigned to us as dealer loans and purchased loans for each of the last eight quarters:

        Unit Volume   Dollar Volume (1)
    Three Months Ended   Dealer Loans   Purchased Loans   Dealer Loans   Purchased Loans
    September 30, 2023           74.8  %           25.2  %           71.7  %           28.3  %
    December 31, 2023           77.2  %           22.8  %           75.0  %           25.0  %
    March 31, 2024           78.2  %           21.8  %           76.6  %           23.4  %
    June 30, 2024           78.5  %           21.5  %           77.3  %           22.7  %
    September 30, 2024           79.5  %           20.5  %           78.4  %           21.6  %
    December 31, 2024           78.7  %           21.3  %           77.7  %           22.3  %
    March 31, 2025           77.0  %           23.0  %           75.1  %           24.9  %
    June 30, 2025           71.6  %           28.4  %           68.3  %           31.7  %

    (1)   Represents advances paid to dealers on Consumer Loans assigned under the portfolio program and one-time payments made to dealers to purchase Consumer Loans assigned under the purchase program.  Payments of dealer holdback and accelerated dealer holdback are not included.

    As of both June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the net dealer loans receivable balance was 72.3% of the total net loans receivable balance. In 2025, we expanded dealer access to the purchase program for Consumer Loans to consumers with higher credit ratings. The increase in the percentage of purchased loans in 2025 Consumer Loan assignment volume was primarily related to Consumer Loans assigned under this expanded dealer access.

    Financial Results

    (Dollars in millions, except per share data) For the Three Months Ended June 30,    
        2025     2024     % Change
    GAAP average debt $         6,583.8    $         5,818.2              13.2  %
    GAAP average shareholders’ equity           1,635.9              1,623.5              0.8  %
    Average capital $         8,219.7    $         7,441.7              10.5  %
    GAAP net income (loss) $         87.4    $         (47.1)             285.6  %
    Diluted weighted average shares outstanding   11,771,525      12,282,174              -4.2  %
    GAAP net income (loss) per diluted share $         7.42    $         (3.83)             293.7  %

    The increase in GAAP net income for the three months ended June 30, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024, was primarily a result of the following:

    • A decrease in provision for credit losses of 46.2% ($148.0 million), due to:
      • A decrease in provision for credit losses on forecast changes of $136.5 million, due to a smaller decline in Consumer Loan performance, which was primarily the result of a smaller downward forecast adjustment applied to our forecasting methodology during the second quarter of 2025 compared to the downward forecast adjustment applied in the second quarter of 2024. The implementation of the forecast adjustment during the second quarter of 2025 reduced forecasted net cash flows by $18.6 million, or 0.2%, and increased provision for credit losses by $16.5 million, whereas the implementation of the forecast adjustment during the second quarter of 2024 reduced forecasted net cash flows by $147.2 million, or 1.4%, and increased our provision for credit losses by $127.5 million.
      • A decrease in provision for credit losses on new Consumer Loan assignments of $11.5 million, primarily due to a 14.6% decrease in Consumer Loan assignment unit volume.
    • An increase in finance charges of 8.6% ($43.0 million), primarily due to an increase in the average balance of our loan portfolio.
    • A loss on sale of a building of $23.7 million recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2024.
    • An increase in interest expense of 13.0% ($13.6 million), primarily due to an increase in our average outstanding debt balance, primarily due to borrowings used to fund the growth of our loan portfolio and stock repurchases.
    • An increase in operating expenses of 25.0% ($31.1 million), primarily due to:
      • An increase in general and administrative expense of 94.8% ($22.0 million), primarily due to an increase in legal expenses, which included the recognition of a $23.4 million contingent loss during the second quarter of 2025 related to previously disclosed legal matters.
      • An increase in salaries and wages expense of 10.4% ($7.9 million), primarily due to increases in (i) the number of team members, as we are investing in our business with the goal of increasing the speed at which we enhance our product for dealers and consumers, and (ii) stock-based compensation expense, primarily due to equity awards granted to our executive officers and senior leaders.
    • An increase in provision for income taxes of 470.7% ($38.6 million), primarily due to an increase in pre-tax income.

    Adjusted financial results are provided to help shareholders understand our financial performance. The financial data below is non-GAAP, unless labeled otherwise. We use adjusted financial information internally to measure financial performance and to determine certain incentive compensation. We also use economic profit as a framework to evaluate business decisions and strategies, with the objective to maximize economic profit over the long term. In addition, certain debt facilities utilize adjusted financial information for the determination of loan collateral values and to measure financial covenants. The table below shows our results following adjustments to reflect non-GAAP accounting methods. Material adjustments are explained in the table footnotes and the subsequent “Floating Yield Adjustment” and “Senior Notes Adjustment” sections. Measures such as adjusted average capital, adjusted net income, adjusted net income per diluted share, adjusted interest expense (after-tax), adjusted net income plus adjusted interest expense (after-tax), adjusted return on capital, adjusted revenue, operating expenses, adjusted loans receivable, adjusted finance charges, adjusted average loans receivable, economic profit, and economic profit per diluted share are non-GAAP financial measures. Non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed in addition to, and not as an alternative for, our reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

    Adjusted financial results for the three months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024, include the following:

    (Dollars in millions, except per share data) For the Three Months Ended June 30,    
        2025       2024     % Change
    Adjusted average capital $         8,932.7      $         8,033.3              11.2  %
    Adjusted net income $         100.8      $         126.4              -20.3  %
    Adjusted interest expense (after-tax) $         88.6      $         80.5              10.1  %
    Adjusted net income plus adjusted interest expense (after-tax) $         189.4      $         206.9              -8.5  %
    Adjusted return on capital           8.5  %             10.3  %           -17.5  %
    Cost of capital           7.4  %             7.5  %           -1.3  %
    Economic profit $         24.4      $         56.2              -56.6  %
    Diluted weighted average shares outstanding   11,771,525        12,282,174              -4.2  %
    Adjusted net income per diluted share $         8.56      $         10.29              -16.8  %
    Economic profit per diluted share $         2.07      $         4.58              -54.8  %

    Economic profit decreased 56.6% for the three months ended June 30, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024. Economic profit is a function of the return on capital in excess of the cost of capital and the amount of capital invested in the business. The following table summarizes the impact each of these components had on the changes in economic profit for the three months ended June 30, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024:

    (In millions) Year over Year Change in Economic Profit
      For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2025
    Decrease in adjusted return on capital $         (40.6)  
    Decrease in cost of capital           2.5   
    Increase in adjusted average capital           6.3   
    Decrease in economic profit $         (31.8)  

    The decrease in economic profit for the three months ended June 30, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024, was primarily a result of the following:

    • A decrease in our adjusted return on capital of 180 basis points, primarily due to:
      • A decrease in the yield used to recognize adjusted finance charges on our loan portfolio decreased our adjusted return on capital by 100 basis points, primarily due to both a decline in forecasted collection rates and slower forecasted net cash flow timing throughout 2024 and 2025. The slower forecasted net cash flow timing was primarily due to lower-than-expected Consumer Loan prepayments, which remain below historical averages.
      • An increase in operating expenses decreased our adjusted return on capital by 60 basis points as operating expenses increased by 25.0% while adjusted average capital increased by 11.2%. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to an increase in legal expenses, which included the recognition of a $23.4 million contingent loss during the second quarter of 2025 related to previously disclosed legal matters.
      • An increase in our estimated long-term effective income tax rate decreased our adjusted return on capital by 20 basis points as the rate increased from 23% to 25% for the second quarter of 2025 and future periods. The increase in our long-term estimate was due to higher state and local income taxes in certain jurisdictions and lower excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation.
    • An increase in adjusted average capital of 11.2%, primarily due to an increase in the average balance of our loan portfolio.

    The following table shows adjusted revenue and operating expenses as a percentage of adjusted average capital, the adjusted return on capital, and the percentage change in adjusted average capital for each of the last eight quarters, compared to the same period in the prior year:

        For the Three Months Ended
        Jun. 30, 2025   Mar. 31, 2025   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Jun. 30, 2024   Mar. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Sept. 30, 2023
    Adjusted finance charges as a percentage of adjusted average loans receivable (1)           17.0  %           16.7  %           16.5  %           16.4  %           17.8  %           17.6  %           17.9  %           18.5  %
    Adjusted revenue as a percentage of adjusted average capital (1)           18.3  %           18.0  %           18.4  %           18.2  %           19.6  %           19.8  %           20.2  %           20.7  %
    Operating expenses as a percentage of adjusted average capital (1)           7.0  %           6.1  %           5.6  %           6.2  %           6.2  %           6.7  %           6.3  %           6.3  %
    Adjusted return on capital (1)           8.5  %           9.2  %           9.8  %           9.3  %           10.3  %           10.1  %           10.6  %           11.1  %
    Percentage change in adjusted average capital compared to the same period in the prior year           11.2  %           18.3  %           19.3  %           19.4  %           17.6  %           14.6  %           11.5  %           8.8  %

    (1)   Annualized.

    The decrease in adjusted return on capital for the three months ended June 30, 2025, as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2025, was primarily due to faster growth in operating expenses, which decreased the adjusted return on capital by 70 basis points, as operating expenses increased by 14.8% while adjusted average capital grew 0.6%. The $20.0 million increase in operating expenses was primarily due to an increase in legal expenses, which included the recognition of a $23.4 million contingent loss during the second quarter of 2025 related to previously disclosed legal matters. The decrease was partially offset by an increase in the yield used to recognize adjusted finance charges on our loan portfolio, which increased our adjusted return on capital by 40 basis points, due to higher yields on more recent Consumer Loan assignments, partially offset by a decline in Consumer Loan performance in the first and second quarters of 2025.

    The following tables provide a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP measures.  Certain amounts do not recalculate due to rounding.

    (Dollars in millions, except per share data)   For the Three Months Ended
        Jun. 30, 2025   Mar. 31, 2025   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Jun. 30, 2024   Mar. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Sept. 30, 2023
    Adjusted net income                                
    GAAP net income (loss)   $         87.4      $         106.3      $         151.9      $         78.8      $         (47.1)     $         64.3      $         93.6      $         70.8   
    Floating yield adjustment (after-tax)             (117.1)               (118.9)               (116.8)               (115.1)               (96.1)               (92.4)               (83.9)               (76.4)  
    GAAP provision for credit losses (after-tax)             129.6                124.6                95.0                142.2                246.9                143.2                126.1                142.1   
    Loss on sale of building (after-tax) (1)             —                —                —                —                18.3                —                —                —   
    Senior notes adjustment (after-tax)             —                —                —                —                —                —                (2.6)               (0.5)  
    Income tax adjustment (2)             0.9                2.8                (4.1)               3.2                4.4                2.3                (4.1)               3.5   
    Adjusted net income   $         100.8      $         114.8      $         126.0      $         109.1      $         126.4      $         117.4      $         129.1      $         139.5   
                                     
    Adjusted net income per diluted share (3)   $         8.56       $         9.35      $         10.17      $         8.79      $         10.29      $         9.28      $         10.06      $         10.70   
    Diluted weighted average shares outstanding     11,771,525        12,279,446        12,388,072        12,415,143        12,282,174        12,646,529        12,837,181        13,039,638   
    Adjusted revenue                                
    GAAP total revenue   $         583.8      $         571.1      $         565.9      $         550.3      $         538.2      $         508.0      $         491.6      $         478.6   
    Floating yield adjustment             (156.0)               (154.5)               (151.8)               (149.4)               (124.8)               (120.0)               (108.9)               (99.3)  
    GAAP provision for claims             (19.8)               (16.1)               (17.7)               (18.5)               (20.3)               (17.0)               (16.6)               (16.5)  
    Adjusted revenue   $         408.0      $         400.5      $         396.4      $         382.4      $         393.1      $         371.0      $         366.1      $         362.8   
    Adjusted average capital                                
    GAAP average debt   $         6,583.8      $         6,398.3      $         6,202.5      $         6,071.1      $         5,818.2      $         5,306.8      $         4,986.3      $         4,831.4   
    Deferred debt issuance adjustment             —                —                —                —                —                —                20.9                24.5   
    Senior notes debt adjustment             —                —                —                —                —                —                2.8                3.4   
    Adjusted average debt             6,583.8                6,398.3                6,202.5                6,071.1                5,818.2                5,306.8                5,010.0                4,859.3   
    GAAP average shareholders’ equity             1,635.9                1,782.0                1,712.3                1,594.2                1,623.5                1,678.5                1,734.3                1,731.3   
    Senior notes equity adjustment             —                —                —                —                —                —                2.0                2.9   
    Income tax adjustment (4)             (100.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)               (118.5)  
    Floating yield adjustment             813.5                820.8                837.0                840.8                710.1                641.0                606.5                548.9   
    Adjusted average equity             2,348.9                2,484.3                2,430.8                2,316.5                2,215.1                2,201.0                2,224.3                2,164.6   
    Adjusted average capital   $         8,932.7      $         8,882.6      $         8,633.3      $         8,387.6      $         8,033.3      $         7,507.8      $         7,234.3      $         7,023.9   
    Adjusted revenue as a percentage of adjusted average capital (5)             18.3  %             18.0  %             18.4  %             18.2  %             19.6  %             19.8  %             20.2  %             20.7  %
    Adjusted loans receivable                                
    GAAP loans receivable, net   $         8,001.9      $         7,978.2      $         7,850.3      $         7,781.5      $         7,547.7      $         7,345.6      $         6,955.3      $         6,780.5   
    Floating yield adjustment             1,096.4                1,079.8                1,072.4                1,100.8                1,065.6                869.7                803.8                748.9   
    Adjusted loans receivable   $         9,098.3      $         9,058.0      $         8,922.7      $         8,882.3      $         8,613.3      $         8,215.3      $         7,759.1      $         7,529.4   
    Adjusted loan yield                                
    GAAP finance charges   $         540.7      $         526.7      $         518.2      $         507.6      $         497.7      $         469.2      $         451.6      $         441.7   
    Floating yield adjustment             (156.0)               (154.5)               (151.8)               (149.4)               (124.8)               (120.0)               (108.9)               (99.3)  
    Adjusted finance charges   $         384.7      $         372.2      $         366.4      $         358.2      $         372.9      $         349.2      $         342.7      $         342.4   
                                     
    GAAP average loans receivable, net   $         8,011.6      $         7,882.4      $         7,831.4      $         7,690.9      $         7,499.2      $         7,101.3      $         6,867.8      $         6,690.8   
    Average floating yield adjustment             1,064.1                1,048.9                1,071.4                1,072.2                903.2                819.7                775.6                701.0   
    Adjusted average loans receivable   $         9,075.7      $         8,931.3      $         8,902.8      $         8,763.1      $         8,402.4      $         7,921.0      $         7,643.4      $         7,391.8   
    Adjusted finance charges as a percentage of adjusted average loans receivable (5)             17.0  %             16.7  %             16.5  %             16.4  %             17.8  %             17.6  %             17.9  %             18.5  %

    (1)   The sale of one of our two office buildings in June 2024 resulted in a loss on the sale of the asset. As this transaction is both unusual and infrequent in nature, we applied this adjustment to remove the impact of the loss on sale of building from our adjusted net income.
    (2)   Adjustment to record taxes at our estimated long-term effective income tax rate. The adjustment for the three months ended June 30, 2025 is calculated using a 25% income tax rate, which is expected to be used for the remainder of 2025 and future periods. This rate represents an increase from 23%, which had been used to calculate after-tax adjustments since 2018, following the enactment in December 2017 of Public Law 115-97, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “2017 Tax Act”). The increase in our long-term estimate was due to higher state and local income taxes in certain jurisdictions and lower excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation.
    (3)   Net income per diluted share is computed independently for each of the quarters presented. Therefore, the sum of quarterly net income per diluted share information may not equal year-to-date net income per diluted share.
    (4)   The enactment of the 2017 Tax Act resulted in the reversal of provision for income taxes to reflect a new, lower federal statutory income tax rate. We began applying the income tax adjustment at that time to remove the impact of this reversal from adjusted average capital. As the enactment of Public Law 119-21 on July 4, 2025 made the lower federal statutory tax rate permanent, removing uncertainty on the future federal statutory income tax rate, we increased our estimated long-term effective income tax rate from 23% to 25% to reflect higher expected state and local income taxes in certain jurisdictions and lower excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation in future periods. We believe the income tax adjustment provides a more accurate reflection of the performance of our business as we are recognizing provision for income taxes at the applicable long-term effective tax rate for the period.
    (5)   Annualized.

    (Dollars in millions)   For the Three Months Ended
        Jun. 30, 2025   Mar. 31, 2025   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Jun. 30, 2024   Mar. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Sept. 30, 2023
    Adjusted interest expense (after-tax)                                
    GAAP interest expense   $         118.1      $         114.7      $         111.3      $         111.2      $         104.5      $         92.5      $         78.8      $         70.5   
    Senior notes adjustment             —                —                —                —                —                —                3.5                0.7   
    Adjusted interest expense (pre-tax)             118.1                114.7                111.3                111.2                104.5                92.5                82.3                71.2   
    Adjustment to record tax effect (1)             (29.5)               (26.4)               (25.6)               (25.6)               (24.0)               (21.3)               (18.9)               (16.4)  
    Adjusted interest expense (after-tax)   $         88.6      $         88.3      $         85.7      $         85.6      $         80.5      $         71.2      $         63.4      $         54.8   
                                     
    Adjusted return on capital (2)                                
    Adjusted net income   $         100.8      $         114.8      $         126.0      $         109.1      $         126.4      $         117.4      $         129.1      $         139.5   
    Adjusted interest expense (after-tax)             88.6                88.3                85.7                85.6                80.5                71.2                63.4                54.8   
    Adjusted net income plus adjusted interest expense (after-tax)   $         189.4      $         203.1      $         211.7      $         194.7      $         206.9      $         188.6      $         192.5      $         194.3   
                                     
    Reconciliation of GAAP return on equity to adjusted return on capital (5)                                
    GAAP return on equity (3)             21.4  %             23.9  %             35.5  %             19.8  %             -11.6  %             15.3  %             21.6  %             16.4  %
    Non-GAAP adjustments             -29.9  %             -14.7  %             -25.7  %             -10.5  %             21.9  %             -5.2  %             -11.0  %             -5.3  %
    Adjusted return on capital (2)             8.5  %             9.2  %             9.8  %             9.3  %             10.3  %             10.1  %             10.6  %             11.1  %
                                     
    Economic profit                                
    Adjusted return on capital             8.5  %             9.2  %             9.8  %             9.3  %             10.3  %             10.1  %             10.6  %             11.1  %
    Cost of capital (4) (5)             7.4  %             7.6  %             7.4  %             7.3  %             7.5  %             7.3  %             7.6  %             7.1  %
    Adjusted return on capital in excess of cost of capital             1.1  %             1.6  %             2.4  %             2.0  %             2.8  %             2.8  %             3.0  %             4.0  %
    Adjusted average capital   $         8,932.7      $         8,882.6      $         8,633.3      $         8,387.6      $         8,033.3      $         7,507.8      $         7,234.3      $         7,023.9   
        Economic profit   $         24.4      $         35.3      $         51.3      $         41.4      $         56.2      $         51.4      $         55.9      $         69.1   
                                     
    Reconciliation of GAAP net income (loss) to economic profit                                
    GAAP net income (loss)   $         87.4      $         106.3      $         151.9      $         78.8      $         (47.1)     $         64.3      $         93.6      $         70.8   
    Non-GAAP adjustments             13.4                8.5                (25.9)               30.3                173.5                53.1                35.5                68.7   
    Adjusted net income             100.8                114.8                126.0                109.1                126.4                117.4                129.1                139.5   
    Adjusted interest expense (after-tax)             88.6                88.3                85.7                85.6                80.5                71.2                63.4                54.8   
    Adjusted net income plus adjusted interest expense (after-tax)             189.4                203.1                211.7                194.7                206.9                188.6                192.5                194.3   
    Less: cost of capital             165.0                167.8                160.4                153.3                150.7                137.2                136.6                125.2   
    Economic profit   $         24.4      $         35.3      $         51.3      $         41.4      $         56.2      $         51.4      $         55.9      $         69.1   
                                     
    Economic profit per diluted share (6)   $         2.07      $         2.87      $         4.14      $         3.33      $         4.58      $         4.06      $         4.35      $         5.30   
    Operating expenses as a percentage of adjusted average capital (5)             7.0  %             6.1  %             5.6  %             6.2  %             6.2  %             6.7  %             6.3  %             6.3  %
    Percentage change in adjusted average capital compared to the same period in the prior year             11.2  %             18.3  %             19.3  %             19.4  %             17.6  %             14.6  %             11.5  %             8.8  %

    (1)   Adjustment to record taxes at our estimated long-term effective income tax rate. The adjustment for the three months ended June 30, 2025 is calculated using a 25% income tax rate, which is expected to be used for the remainder of 2025 and future periods. This rate represents an increase from 23%, which had been used to calculate after-tax adjustments since 2018, following the enactment of the 2017 Tax Act. The increase in our long-term estimate was due to higher state and local income taxes in certain jurisdictions and lower excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation.
    (2)   Adjusted return on capital is defined as adjusted net income plus adjusted interest expense (after-tax) divided by adjusted average capital.
    (3)        Calculated by dividing GAAP net income (loss) by GAAP average shareholders’ equity.

    (4)   The cost of capital includes both a cost of equity and a cost of debt.  The cost of equity capital is determined based on a formula that considers the risk of the business and the risk associated with our use of debt.  The formula utilized for determining the cost of equity capital is as follows: (the average 30-year Treasury rate + 5%) + [(1 – tax rate) x (the average 30-year Treasury rate + 5% – pre-tax average cost of debt rate) x average debt/(average equity + average debt x tax rate)].  For the periods presented, the average 30-year Treasury rate and the adjusted pre-tax average cost of debt were as follows:

        For the Three Months Ended
        Jun. 30, 2025   Mar. 31, 2025   Dec. 31, 2024   Sept. 30, 2024   Jun. 30, 2024   Mar. 31, 2024   Dec. 31, 2023   Sept. 30, 2023
    Average 30-year Treasury rate           4.8  %           4.7  %           4.4  %           4.3  %           4.6  %          4.3  %           4.7  %           4.2  %
    Pre-tax average cost of debt (5)           7.2  %           7.2  %           7.2  %           7.3  %           7.2  %           7.0  %           6.3  %           5.9  %

    (5)   Annualized.
    (6)   Economic profit per diluted share is computed independently for each of the quarters presented. Therefore, the sum of quarterly economic profit per diluted share information may not equal year-to-date economic profit per diluted share.

    Floating Yield Adjustment

    The net loan income (finance charge revenue less provision for credit losses expense) that we recognize over the life of a loan equals the cash we collect from the underlying Consumer Loan less the cash we pay to the dealer. We believe the economics of our business are best exhibited by recognizing loan revenue on a level-yield basis over the life of the loan based on expected future net cash flows. The purpose of this non-GAAP adjustment is to provide insight into our business by showing this level yield measure of income. Under GAAP, contractual amounts due in excess of the loan receivable balance at the time of assignment will be reflected as interest income, while contractual amounts due that are not expected to be collected are reflected in the provision for credit losses. Our non-GAAP floating yield adjustment recognizes the net effects of contractual interest income and expected credit losses in a single measure of finance charge revenue, consistent with how we manage our business. The floating yield adjustment recognizes revenue on a level-yield basis based upon expected future net cash flows, with any changes in expected future net cash flows, which are recognized immediately under GAAP as provision for credit losses, recognized over the remaining forecast period (up to 120 months after the origination date of the underlying Consumer Loans) for each individual dealer loan and purchased loan. The floating yield adjustment does not accelerate revenue recognition. Rather, it reduces revenue by taking amounts that are reported under GAAP as provision for credit losses and instead treating them as reductions of revenue over time.

    Under the GAAP methodology we employ, which is known as the current expected credit loss model, or CECL, we are required to recognize:

    • a significant provision for credit losses expense at the time of the loan’s assignment to us for contractual net cash flows we do not expect to realize; and
    • finance charge revenue in subsequent periods that is significantly in excess of our expected yield.

    Due to the GAAP treatment of contractual net cash flows we do not expect to realize at the time of loan assignment (i.e. significant expense at the time of loan assignment, which is offset by higher revenue in subsequent periods), we do not believe the GAAP methodology we employ provides sufficient transparency into the economics of our business, including our results of operations, financial condition, and financial leverage. Our floating yield adjustment enables us to provide measures of income that are not impacted by GAAP’s treatment of contractual net cash flows we do not expect to realize at the time of loan assignment. We believe the floating yield adjustment is presented in a manner which reflects both the economic reality of our business and how the business is managed and provides valuable supplemental information to help investors better understand our business, executive compensation, liquidity, and capital resources.

    Senior Notes Adjustment (applied in periods prior to December 31, 2023)

    This non-GAAP adjustment modifies our GAAP financial results to treat the issuance of certain senior notes as a refinancing of certain previously issued senior notes. Our historical adjusted financial information reflects application of the senior notes adjustment as described below in connection with (i) the issuance by us in 2014 of $300.0 million principal amount of 6.125% senior notes due 2021 (the “2021 senior notes”) and the related retirement of our 9.125% senior notes due 2017 (the “2017 senior notes”) and (ii) the issuance by us in 2019 of $400.0 million principal amount of 5.125% senior notes due 2024 (the “2024 senior notes”) and the related retirement of the 2021 senior notes and our 7.375% senior notes due 2023 (the “2023 senior notes”).

    We issued the 2024 senior notes on December 18, 2019. We used a portion of the net proceeds from the 2024 senior notes to repurchase or redeem all of the $300.0 million outstanding principal amount of the 2021 senior notes, of which $148.2 million was repurchased on December 18, 2019 and the remaining $151.8 million was redeemed on January 17, 2020. We used the remaining net proceeds from the 2024 senior notes, together with borrowings under our revolving credit facility, to redeem in full the $250.0 million outstanding principal amount of the 2023 senior notes on March 15, 2020. Under GAAP, the fourth quarter of 2019 included (i) a pre-tax loss on extinguishment of debt of $1.8 million related to the repurchase of 2021 senior notes in the fourth quarter of 2019 and the redemption of the remaining 2021 senior notes in the first quarter of 2020 and (ii) additional interest expense of $0.3 million on $160.0 million of additional outstanding debt caused by the one month lag from the issuance of the 2024 senior notes and repurchase of 2021 senior notes in the fourth quarter of 2019 to the redemption of the remaining 2021 senior notes in the first quarter of 2020. Under GAAP, the first quarter of 2020 included (i) a pre-tax loss on extinguishment of debt of $7.4 million related to the redemption of 2023 senior notes in the first quarter of 2020 and (ii) additional interest expense of $0.4 million on $160.0 million of additional outstanding debt caused by the one month lag from the issuance of the 2024 senior notes and repurchase of 2021 senior notes in the fourth quarter of 2019 to the redemption of the remaining 2021 senior notes in the first quarter of 2020.

    We issued the 2021 senior notes on January 22, 2014. On February 21, 2014, we used the net proceeds from the 2021 senior notes, together with borrowings under our revolving credit facilities, to redeem in full the $350.0 million outstanding principal amount of the 2017 senior notes. Under GAAP, the first quarter of 2014 included (i) a pre-tax loss on extinguishment of debt of $21.8 million related to the redemption of the 2017 senior notes in the first quarter of 2014 and (ii) additional interest expense of $1.4 million on $276.0 million of additional outstanding debt caused by the one month lag from the issuance of the 2021 senior notes to the redemption of the 2017 senior notes.

    Under our non-GAAP approach, the loss on extinguishment of debt and additional interest expense that were recognized for GAAP purposes were in each case deferred as debt issuance costs to be recognized ratably as interest expense over the term of the newly issued notes. In addition, for adjusted average capital purposes, the impact of additional outstanding debt related to the lag from the issuance of the new notes to the redemption of the previously issued notes was in each case deferred to be recognized ratably over the term of the newly issued notes. Upon the issuance of the 2024 senior notes in the fourth quarter of 2019, the outstanding unamortized balances of the non-GAAP adjustments related to the 2021 senior notes were deferred and were recognized ratably over the term of the 2024 senior notes, until the repurchase and redemption of the 2024 senior notes in December 2023.

    We believe the application of the senior notes adjustment as described above provides a more accurate reflection of the performance of our business, since we were recognizing the costs incurred with these transactions in a manner consistent with how we recognize the costs incurred when we periodically refinance our other debt facilities. We have determined not to apply the senior notes adjustments in connection with (i) the issuance by us in December 2023 of our 9.250% senior notes due 2028 and the related retirement of the 2024 senior notes or (ii) the issuance by us in February 2025 of our 6.625% senior notes due 2030 and the related retirement of the 2026 senior notes, because the adjustments would not be material.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    We claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for all of our forward-looking statements. Statements in this release that are not historical facts, such as those using terms like “may,” “will,” “should,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “target,” or similar expressions, and those regarding our future results, plans, and objectives, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements represent our outlook only as of the date of this release. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements since the statements are based on our current expectations, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, the factors set forth in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 12, 2025, and Item 1A in Part II of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the SEC on July 31, 2025, and other risk factors discussed herein or listed from time to time in our reports filed with the SEC and the following:

    Industry, Operational, and Macroeconomic Risks

    • Our inability to accurately forecast and estimate the amount and timing of future collections could have a material adverse effect on results of operations.
    • Due to competition from traditional financing sources and non-traditional lenders, we may not be able to compete successfully.
    • Adverse changes in economic conditions, the automobile or finance industries, or the non-prime consumer market could adversely affect our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations, the ability of key vendors that we depend on to supply us with services, and our ability to enter into future financing transactions.
    • Reliance on third parties to administer our ancillary product offerings could adversely affect our business and financial results.
    • We are dependent on our senior management, and the loss of any of these individuals or an inability to hire additional team members could adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.
    • Our reputation is a key asset to our business, and our business may be affected by how we are perceived in the marketplace.
    • An outbreak of contagious disease or other public health emergency could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.
    • The concentration in several states of automobile dealers who participate in our programs could adversely affect us.
    • Reliance on our outsourced business functions could adversely affect our business.
    • Our ability to hire and retain foreign engineering personnel could be hindered by immigration restrictions.
    • We may be unable to execute our business strategy due to current economic conditions.
    • Natural disasters, climate change, military conflicts, acts of war, terrorist attacks and threats, or the escalation of military activity in response to terrorist attacks or otherwise may negatively affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
    • Governmental or market responses to climate change and related environmental issues could have a material adverse effect on our business.
    • A small number of our shareholders have the ability to significantly influence matters requiring shareholder approval and such shareholders have interests which may conflict with the interests of our other security holders.

    Capital and Liquidity Risks

    • We may be unable to continue to access or renew funding sources and obtain capital needed to maintain and grow our business.
    • The terms of our debt limit how we conduct our business.
    • A violation of the terms of our asset-backed secured financings or revolving secured warehouse facilities could have a material adverse impact on our operations.
    • Our substantial debt could negatively impact our business, prevent us from satisfying our debt obligations, and adversely affect our financial condition.
    • We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows to service our outstanding debt and fund operations and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under such debt.
    • Interest rate fluctuations may adversely affect our borrowing costs, profitability, and liquidity.
    • Reduction in our credit rating could increase the cost of our funding from, and restrict our access to, the capital markets and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.
    • We may incur substantially more debt and other liabilities. This could exacerbate further the risks associated with our current debt levels.
    • The conditions of the U.S. and international capital markets may adversely affect lenders with which we have relationships, causing us to incur additional costs and reducing our sources of liquidity, which may adversely affect our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

    Technology and Cybersecurity Risks

    • Our dependence on technology could have a material adverse effect on our business.
    • We depend on secure information technology, and a breach of our systems or those of our third-party service providers could result in our experiencing significant financial, legal, and reputational exposure and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
    • Our use of electronic contracts could impact our ability to perfect our ownership or security interest in Consumer Loans.
    • Failure to properly safeguard our proprietary business information or confidential consumer and team member personal information could subject us to liability, decrease our profitability, and damage our reputation.
    • The development and use of artificial intelligence presents risks and challenges that may adversely impact our business.

    Legal and Regulatory Risks

    • Litigation we are involved in from time to time may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
    • Changes in tax laws and the resolution of uncertain income tax matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows from operations.
    • The regulations to which we are or may become subject could result in a material adverse effect on our business.

    Other factors not currently anticipated by management may also materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. We do not undertake, and expressly disclaim any obligation, to update or alter our statements, whether as a result of new information or future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

    Webcast Details

    We will host a webcast on July 31, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss our second quarter results. The webcast can be accessed live by visiting the “Investor Relations” section of our website at ir.creditacceptance.com or by telephone as described below. Only persons accessing the webcast by telephone will be able to pose questions to the presenters during the webcast. A replay and transcript of the webcast will be archived in the “Investor Relations” section of our website. 

    To participate in the webcast by telephone, you must pre-register at https://register.vevent.com/register/BIdf2e1302737241fd92014eec2b76a62f, or through the link posted on the “Investor Relations” section of our website at ir.creditacceptance.com. Upon registration you will be provided with the dial-in number and a unique PIN to access the webcast by telephone.

    Description of Credit Acceptance Corporation

    We make vehicle ownership possible by providing innovative financing solutions that enable automobile dealers to sell vehicles to consumers regardless of their credit history. Our financing programs are offered through a nationwide network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing; from repeat and referral sales generated by these same customers; and from sales to customers responding to advertisements for our financing programs, but who actually end up qualifying for traditional financing.

    Without our financing programs, consumers are often unable to purchase vehicles or they purchase unreliable ones. Further, as we report to the three national credit reporting agencies, an important ancillary benefit of our programs is that we provide consumers with an opportunity to improve their lives by improving their credit score and move on to more traditional sources of financing. Credit Acceptance is publicly traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol CACC. For more information, visit creditacceptance.com.

    CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
    (UNAUDITED)
            

    (Dollars in millions, except per share data) For the Three Months Ended June 30,
        2025     2024  
    Revenue:      
    Finance charges $         540.7    $         497.7   
    Premiums earned           24.1              24.3   
    Other income           19.0              16.2   
    Total revenue           583.8              538.2   
    Costs and expenses:      
    Salaries and wages           83.7              75.8   
    General and administrative           45.2              23.2   
    Sales and marketing           26.6              25.4   
    Total operating expenses           155.5              124.4   
           
    Provision for credit losses on forecast changes           101.3              237.8   
    Provision for credit losses on new Consumer Loan assignments           71.3              82.8   
    Total provision for credit losses           172.6              320.6   
           
    Interest           118.1              104.5   
    Provision for claims           19.8              20.3   
    Loss on sale of building           —              23.7   
    Total costs and expenses           466.0              593.5   
           Income (loss) before provision for income taxes           117.8              (55.3)  
    Provision (benefit) for income taxes           30.4              (8.2)  
           Net income (loss) $         87.4    $         (47.1)  
           
    Net income (loss) per share:      
    Basic $         7.55    $         (3.83)  
    Diluted $         7.42    $         (3.83)  
           
    Weighted average shares outstanding:      
    Basic           11,574,018              12,282,174   
    Diluted           11,771,525              12,282,174   

    CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (UNAUDITED)

    (Dollars in millions, except per share data) As of
      June 30, 2025   December 31, 2024
    ASSETS:      
    Cash and cash equivalents $         70.0      $         343.7   
    Restricted cash and cash equivalents           493.8                501.3   
    Restricted securities available for sale           107.1                106.4   
           
    Loans receivable           11,563.0                11,289.1   
    Allowance for credit losses           (3,561.1)               (3,438.8)  
    Loans receivable, net           8,001.9                7,850.3   
           
    Property and equipment, net           13.2                14.7   
    Income taxes receivable           9.4                4.2   
    Other assets           29.2                34.0   
    Total assets $         8,724.6      $         8,854.6   
           
    LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:      
    Liabilities:      
    Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $         378.8      $         315.8   
    Revolving secured lines of credit           1.5                0.1   
    Secured financing           5,383.3                5,361.5   
    Senior notes           1,086.4                991.3   
    Deferred income taxes, net           306.1                319.1   
    Income taxes payable           13.8                117.2   
    Total liabilities           7,169.9                7,105.0   
           
    Shareholders’ Equity:      
    Preferred stock, $.01 par value, 1,000,000 shares authorized, none issued           —                —   
    Common stock, $.01 par value, 80,000,000 shares authorized, 11,237,396 and 12,048,151 shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively           0.1                0.1   
    Paid-in capital           369.3                335.1   
    Retained earnings           1,184.3                1,414.7   
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)           1.0                (0.3)  
    Total shareholders’ equity           1,554.7                1,749.6   
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $         8,724.6      $         8,854.6   

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Presses for Release of Epstein Files

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – This week, President Trump’s former personal defense attorney and current high-ranking DOJ lawyer Todd Blanche was dispatched to conduct a private jailhouse interview with Jeffrey Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who President Trump knew personally. Ms. Maxwell is serving a 20 year federal sentence for her role in the sex trafficking of young women and girls, and President Trump has refused to rule out a presidential pardon for her. During the 2020 campaign, Trump said that he “wishes her well.”

    In an effort to restore public trust and ensure the American public knows what information is in the Epstein files, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) is teaming up with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and several colleagues on legislation to direct the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to publicly release all files relating to the investigation of dead sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. There would be common-sense protections against disclosure of information that would compromise the privacy and safety of victims and witnesses. However, information could not be withheld to protect someone’s reputation or for political sensitivities—on both sides of the aisle.

    The Epstein Files Transparency Act would provide full transparency for the American people, accountability for individuals involved with Epstein, and justice for all victims harmed. The bill mandates that within 30 days of its enactment, the U.S. Attorney General must release all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein case held by the Department of Justice, including files from the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

    “The rich and powerful cannot use their influence, money, and connections to cover up the abuse of our most vulnerable,” said Senator Merkley. “We have a government of ‘We the People,’ not ‘We the Powerful.’ To restore the public’s trust, the American people deserve the truth about Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him.”

    “Like his promise to lower prices, President Trump wants to renege on his pledge to release the Epstein files. Once again, he’s failed to deliver. The American people deserve answers, the victims deserve justice, and it’s past time for Congressional Republicans to hold the Executive branch accountable,” said Senator Reed. “Instead of lifting a finger to release the Epstein files, President Trump is doing everything he can to prevent them from coming out. The American people deserve truth and accountability. The records should be transparently released and there should be zero tolerance for abuse of power and sex trafficking of innocent underage victims.”

    The Senate bill compliments the bipartisan House bill (H.Res.581) introduced by Congressmen Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA).

    Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) suspended all House business until September rather than endure a vote on the Massie-Khanna resolution calling for transparent disclosure of the Epstein files.

    In addition to Merkley and Reed, the Epstein Files Transparency Act is also co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chris Coons (D-DE), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

    Sponsors of the bill are working to ensure the Senate considers it in a timely manner and before the Senate Republicans adjourn the chamber for its August district work period.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Newly Declassified Appendix to Durham Report Sheds Additional Light on Clinton Campaign Plan to Falsely Tie Trump to Russia and FBI’s Failure to Investigate

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today is making public the formerly Classified Appendix (“Durham annex”) to John Durham’s 2023 Special Counsel report. The Unclassified Report and the Classified Appendix form the entirety of Durham’s Special Counsel Report.

    The Durham annex contains previously classified information exposing a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

    The annex also goes into further detail on matters discussed in the Unclassified Report, specifically:

    • The FBI’s failure – under the leadership of then-Director James Comey – to investigate intelligence that the Clinton campaign may have created the Russia collusion hoax. Meanwhile the Comey-led FBI used the Steele Dossier – a Clinton campaign creation – to obtain FISA warrants on Carter Page.

    Attorney General Pam Bondi, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel and Intelligence Community elements declassified the Durham annex at Grassley’s request. In requesting its declassification, which included declassification of information by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA), Grassley argued that “the overriding public interest demands the release of this information, and doing so would benefit public transparency and accountability.”

    “Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means. These intelligence reports and related records, whether true or false, were buried for years. History will show that the Obama and Biden administration’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump. This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. The new Trump administration has a tremendous responsibility to the American people to fix the damage done and do so with maximum speed and transparency,” Grassley said.

    “For years, I’ve fought to assemble and publicize all the facts surrounding Durham’s investigation, Crossfire Hurricane and related matters. The American people shouldn’t be shortchanged or strung out on matters of significant public interest, and that firm belief fuels my tireless oversight. It’s been a refreshing change to see Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel’s increased efforts to bring transparency to a very dark corner of the people’s government. I hope that attitude continues, and you can be sure my oversight work will continue as well, because there’s much work yet to be done,” Grassley concluded.

    Read the Durham annex HERE.

    Key Findings of the Durham Annex:

    The Clinton Campaign Plan

    In 2016, the Obama administration obtained intelligence information from a source contained in two separate memoranda – one memorandum from January 2016 and another from March 2016. The two memoranda “described ‘confidential conversations’ between then-Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and two individuals at the [Soros] Open Society Foundations (i) [Leonard] Benardo and (ii) Jeffrey Goldstein.” (Pgs. 2-3)

    • This memo stated, in part, that “[the Democratic Party’s] opposition is focused on discrediting Trump…. [a]mong other things, the Clinton staff, with support from special services, is preparing scandalous revelations of business relations between Trump and the ‘Russian Mafia’”. (Pg. 4)

    • According to the Durham annex, based on an analysis and translation of the intelligence, FBI analysts believed that, at the time, the “special services” in the March 2016 memorandum could refer “to the FBI and the CIA or more broadly to the intelligence and law enforcement communities” in the United States, or, analysts speculated, it could refer to “Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.” (Pg. 5)

    • When the Obama administration received this intelligence in March 2016, Fusion GPS was preparing open source opposition research regarding purported ties between Trump and Russians. The research was paid for by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. (Pg. 5).

    • Notably, on April 15, 2020, Grassley released Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) footnotes showing that Russian intelligence was aware of Steele’s anti-Trump research in early July 2016. Further, the FBI had reports in hand in 2017 that the Dossier may have Russian sources and was potentially Russian disinformation.

    On March 31, 2016, FBI personnel, including then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, shared the intelligence regarding the potential Clinton Campaign Plan with high-ranking career officials at DOJ. (Pg. 5)

    FBI Receipt of Additional Intelligence Information on the Clinton Campaign Plan

    The Durham annex describes that, in July 2016, the FBI received additional intelligence regarding a possible Clinton Campaign Plan, including documents with purported emails allegedly sent by Leonard Benardo, Senior Vice President of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The intelligence included data providing specificity on the plan and the attempt to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia, while apparently counting on the support of the FBI to open up an investigation. (Pgs. 7-11)

    The intelligence the FBI received also included information and analysis from purported Leonard Benardo emails that stated, in part:

    • “During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…technical structures… in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.” (Pg. 8)

    • “The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue… In absence of direct evidence, Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media, and GRU [Russia’s Main Intelligence Directive] will hopefully carry on to give more facts.” (Pg. 11)

    Assessment of Authenticity of the “Benardo Emails” Intelligence

    • The Durham annex states, “Analysts and officers whom [Durham’s team] interviewed, and who were well-versed in the Sensitive Intelligence collection, stated that their best assessment was that the Bernardo emails were likely authentic.” (Pg. 11)

    Durham’s team conducted investigative work to inform their assessment. Per the Durham annex:

    • Communications the Durham team reviewed provided additional support that the Clinton campaign was engaged in a plan to tie Trump to Russia and that the campaign wanted or expected the Office of the Vice President, the FBI or other parts of the Intelligence Community, such as the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), to aid that effort. (Pgs. 16-17)

    • The Durham annex states, “The Office’s best assessment is that the … emails that purport to be from Benardo were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the U.S.-based Think Tanks, including the Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment, and others.” (Pg. 17)

    • The Durham annex concludes, “It is a logical deduction [redacted] [Julianne] Smith was, at minimum, playing a role in the Clinton campaign’s efforts to tie Trump to Russia,” and that the communications it reviewed “certainly lends at least some credence that such a plan existed.” (Pg. 17)

    The Obama-Biden Administration’s Response to Intelligence on the Clinton Campaign Plan

    • According to the Durham annex, following the receipt of this intelligence, multiple high-ranking U.S. officials were briefed on the matter, including an August 3, 2016 briefing in the White House by CIA Director John Brennan to President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director Comey, among others. As described in Durham’s Unclassified Report, ultimately, the CIA sent the FBI an investigative referral that included the “purported Clinton campaign plan.” (Pg. 18)

    • In 2017, the “CIA prepared a written assessment of the authenticity and veracity of the above-referenced intelligence. The CIA stated that it did not assess that the above [redacted] memoranda, or [redacted] hacked U.S. communications, to be the product of Russian fabrications.” (Pg. 19)

    • The Durham annex notes that “FBI was fully alerted to the possibility that at least some of the information it was receiving about the Trump campaign might have its origin either with the Clinton campaign or its supporters, or alternatively, was the product of Russian disinformation.”

    • The Durham annex concludes, in part, that “[d]espite this awareness, the FBI appears to have dismissed the [intelligence information] as not credible without any investigative steps actually having been taken to either corroborate or disprove the allegations.” (Pgs. 22-24)

    The Threat of Foreign Election Influence and Assessment in FISA Renewal Applications

    As the Unclassified Durham Report noted, “[b]eginning in late 2014… the FBI learned from a well-placed Confidential Human Source that a foreign government (“Foreign Government-2”) was planning to send an individual (“Non-U.S. Person-I”) to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency.”

    The Durham annex notes that “Non-U.S.Person-I” was “directly tasked by the leader of Foreign Government-2” with facilitating this plan, but had indicated plans to travel to the U.S. in late 2014.

    • However, as known from the Unclassified Durham Report, the FISA “application lingered because ‘everyone was super more careful’ and ‘scared with the big name [Clinton]’ involved.”

    • Ultimately, after four months, the FISA authority was authorized following a commitment that Clinton and others targeted by Foreign Government-2 would receive defensive briefings. (Pgs. 23-24)

    The remainder of the Durham annex reinforces that the FBI provided false and misleading information to the FISA court in pursuit of FISA renewals, and at least one Confidential Human Source lied to his handlers.

    The information in the Durham annex, taken together with previously released details in the Unclassified Report, reinforce the FBI’s disparate treatment of Trump versus Clinton. Despite lacking probable cause and relying on false information, the FBI secured a FISA warrant and multiple renewals to surveil Carter Page and did not provide Trump a defensive briefing equivalent to Clinton’s briefings.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: British Columbia harvester fined over a million dollars and receives a six-year jail sentence for illegal fishing and sale of sea cucumber

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    July 31, 2025                                                                

    Nanaimo, BC – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is committed to the enforcement of the Fisheries Act and is working with partners to strengthen surveillance, monitoring, and prosecution of serious fisheries violations.

    The Honourable Justice Crerar of the British Columbia Supreme Court has sentenced Scott Steer, a repeat offender with a history of serious violations under the Fisheries Act, for illegal sea cucumber harvesting and sale. The sentencing follows Mr. Steer’s conviction on January 8, 2025, on multiple counts related to the unlawful harvest and sale of sea cucumbers between July 2019 and June 2020. 

    Penalties include:

    • a six-year jail sentence for Scott Steer to be served consecutively;
    • a global fine of $1,105,718 dollars ($1,005,718 and an additional $100,000 fine for the corporate offenders) for which Mr. and Mrs. Steer are jointly liable which is to be paid by monthly installment over 20 years; and
    • forfeiture of all items seized during the investigation, other than Mrs. Steer’s two phones, including two vessels, two vehicles, a trailer and many items related to fishing.

    Mr. Steer has an extensive history of fisheries violations that have resulted in numerous convictions, prohibitions, fines, and jail sentences. He had previously been prohibited by the Courts in 2016 from possessing or acquiring fishing gear, being onboard any fishing vessel, or applying for a fishing license until 2038. Despite these prohibitions, he actively orchestrated an illegal fishing operation, acquiring and outfitting vessels, recruiting crew, forging DFO records, and selling unlawfully harvested sea cucumbers.

    The court found that Mr. Steer’s illegal activities resulted in the sale of over 87,000 pounds of sea cucumbers, generating more than $1 million in revenue through fraudulent transactions with a Vancouver-based processing company. Justice Crerar determined that 1215419 B.C. Ltd. was a sham corporation used to circumvent Mr. Steer’s prohibitions and court orders, and that Mrs. Steer was fully involved in the scheme.

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada reminds the public that illegal fishing threatens the sustainability of Canada’s fisheries and urges anyone with information on potential violations to report them to DFO’s toll-free violation reporting line at 1-800-465-4336 or by email at DFO.ORR-ONS.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Walker County Man Sentenced to Nine Years in Prison on Drug Charge

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    TUSCALOOSA, Ala. – A Walker County man has been sentenced for illegally possessing cocaine, announced U.S. Attorney Prim F. Escalona.

    U.S. District Court Judge Anna M. Manasco sentenced Shannon Wayne Herron, 50, of Jasper, Alabama, to 108 months in prison. In February, Herron pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    According to the plea agreement, on November 1, 2023, detectives with the Jasper Police Department Narcotics Unit executed a search warrant on a residence in Jasper. During the search, officers recovered 366 grams of pure methamphetamine, marijuana, a digital scale, a ledger containing names with dollar amounts next to the names, four cell phones, and approximately $1,800 in cash.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration investigated the case along with the Jasper Police Department Narcotics Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristy Peoples prosecuted the case. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Boston Man Pleads Guilty to Failing to Register as a Sex Offender

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Defendant previously convicted of sodomy and assault with intent to rape a minor under 12

    BOSTON – A Boston man pleaded guilty today in federal court in Boston to failure to register as a sex offender. Defendant served in United States Navy in April 1998 when he was convicted of sodomy, assault and intent to rape a minor under the age of 12.

    Adrian Martinez, 56, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender before U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin who scheduled sentencing for Oct. 28, 2025. In April 2025, Martinez was arrested and charged.

    Martinez is a Level 3 sex offender who was previously convicted while serving in the United States Navy of: committing sodomy with a person under the age of 12; taking indecent liberties upon the body of a female under 12 years of age (4 counts); and assault with intent to rapea person under the age of 12, in violation of Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

    Following his conviction, Martinez was sentenced to a 40-year period of incarceration. Martinez served approximately 11 years of his 40 year sentence and was released from custody in February of 2009. Martinez was required to register as a sex offender and update his registration any time he moved or changed employment. At some point after Sept. 30, 2022, Martinez moved out of his Boston residence and did not notify law enforcement of his change in registered address. Boston Police attempted to contact Martinez but were unsuccessful in their attempts.

    Martinez faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, a minimum of five years and up to lifetime supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and Kevin Neal, Acting United States Marshal for the District of Massachusetts made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke A. Goldworm, Project Safe Childhood Coordinator and a member of the Major Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case.

    The case is brought as part of Project Safe Childhood. In 2006, the Department of Justice created Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative designed to protect children from exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims.  For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov/.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: African Peace Award 2025

    Source: APO – Report:

    I bring you compliments from the board and management of African Peace Magazine UK (https://AfricanPeace.org).

    On behalf of the Chairman Justice Suleiman Galadima, JSC, OFR, CFR (Rtd.) African Peace Magazine UK, humbly wish to specially invite you to attend the Hybrid and in person Award.

    The African Peace Magazine UK, in conjunction with her strategic partners: Rethink Africa Foundation, African Fact Checkers, Centre for peace and Conflict management in Africa, African Right Watch Television Ltd and several others is set to host the 15th Edition of the prestigious African Peace Awards, it is scheduled to hold in London England with the theme “The Magic of Peace”.

    African Peace Magazine UK, has been publishing for well over 15 years, and we are committed to promoting Peace, business networking, good governance and improved condition of living for Africans.

    Established in 2009, African Peace Award is an international award presented annually to honor individuals and organizations in various fields that have made outstanding contributions toward the realization of a peaceful and harmonious world as envisioned in the Declaration for All Life on Earth. They are selected not only in recognition of their past achievements, but for their ongoing contribution to building a better future. www.AfricanPeaceAwards.com

    African Peace Award is usually presented at a ceremony during the annual dinner and lecture, where the laureate takes center stage to deliver a commemorative address and receive a medal and a diploma together with a monetary prize.

    In addition to this annual award, the Culture of Peace Special Award is presented occasionally to honor individuals and organizations in various fields that have notably contributed to spreading and fostering a Culture of Peace around the world.

    The event is designed to host business, political, and diplomatic leaders. It is set to have in attendance, policy makers and think-tanks on Africa and Africa related issues.

    The African Peace Awards 2025 seeks to honor persons, institutions, organization, governments and others whose actions, and efforts have in one way improved or contributed to peace keeping and conflict management in Africa as well as improving the lives of Africans. 

    The African Peace brand has noted that Peace promotion and conflict management in any society alleviates uncertainty and risk which in turn promotes economic growth in any given community. It contributes to the economic growth of the community by increasing the productivity in capital and labour as well as good governance.

    The African Peace brand introduces its awards in the hopes of promoting peace globally and specifically in Africa with the hope of effecting change in Africa first and then globally.

    Several African Presidents, heads of Government, first ladies, past president and Vice presidents, top business CEOs, diplomats and others have received the Award in the past.

    – on behalf of African Peace Magazine.

    Contact Information:
    Attendance is strictly by invitation. For your VIP and VVIP Access cards
    To get you invite kindly contact us:
    +447771217805
    +2348033975746
    +447407399766
    +1(443)8835678

    For sponsorship, partnership, Exhibition and speaking opportunities and all other enquiries please contact:
    Chia Sandra
    International Affairs
    +2348033975746
    +447407399766

    Nigeria Abuja Office:
    Suite FT 12B Alibro Atrium Plaza Utako Abuja
    +2348033975746

    South African Office:
    16 Ridge Road Vorna Valley Midland 1686 South Africa
    +27662449117

    Angola:
    Call +244928690892
    +244993656970
    +244927589884

    London Office:
    10 Saint Andrew Road Bedford MK 402LJ England
    Call +447777121780
    WhatsApp +447407399766 

    Email: africanpeacemag@gmail.com

    Social Media:
    Twitter: https://apo-opa.co/4l31pm5
    Facebook: https://apo-opa.co/4fhNOWK
    Instagram: https://apo-opa.co/3UBY3eS
    LinkedIn: https://apo-opa.co/4lTpnBc

    About African Peace Magazine:
    The African Peace Magazine is published by African Peace Magazine (U.K.) Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom. We are also registered in Nigeria, Angola and South Africa. The magazine focuses on bringing the best of Africa to a global audience, telling the African story from an African perspective, while evolving solutions to peculiar challenges being faced by the continent today.

    Websites: https://AfricanPeace.org
    www.AfricanPeaceAwards.com
    https://AfricanOilAndGasSummit.com

    Media files

    .

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Castro, Welch, Van Hollen, Jacobs Demand U.S. Security Companies Answer for Deadly Actions in Gaza

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Joaquin Castro (20th District of Texas)

    July 31, 2025

    Bicameral lawmakers warn Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) and UG Solutions (UG) that they have put American veterans at risk of criminal and civil liability for de facto “military operations” in Gaza

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Joaquin Castro (TX-20) and Sara Jacobs (CA-51) joined U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in leading an effort to demand answers from U.S.-based security companies, Safe Reach Solutions, LLC (SRS) and UG Solutions, LLC (UG) about their activities in Gaza, which according to press reports, include using lethal force against unarmed and starving Palestinian civilians at aid distribution sites.  

    The lawmakers warned SRS and UG that the companies and personnel—many of them American military veterans hired as private security contractors—may be subject to future criminal and civil liability under U.S. laws prohibiting torture, war crimes, and forced deportation. The lawmakers also requested the preservation of all documents and communication related to the security companies’ contracts and work with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). 

    “We were horrified by reporting this week on your companies’ deadly security operations in Gaza. Your operations have exposed hundreds of brave American veterans to future criminal and civil liability under U.S. laws criminalizing war crimes, torture, and forced deportation,” wrote the lawmakers. “Reports and firsthand witnesses have indicated to us that your personnel—American veterans hired as private security contractors—were brought into Israel on tourist visas inappropriate for the intended purpose of their travel, sent to Gaza armed for combat, and ordered by Israeli officials to use lethal force against unarmed and starving Palestinian civilians. We have also learned that under Israeli orders, your personnel are conducting crowd control at food distribution sites by firing live rounds over the heads of civilians and using stun grenades and pepper spray—all in an active military zone under direct supervision by Israeli military officers.” 

    The lawmakers continued: “As a result, we are deeply concerned that you may have failed to alert your personnel—or investors—of the immense legal risks they face for conducting what amounts to military operations on behalf of the Israeli government on land outside of the State of Israel.” 

    Read and download the letter here and below:  

    Mr. Govoni, Mr. Reilly,  

    We were horrified by reporting this week on your companies’ deadly security operations in Gaza. Your operations have exposed hundreds of brave American veterans to future criminal and civil liability under U.S. laws criminalizing war crimes, torture, and forced deportation.  

    Reports and firsthand witnesses have indicated to us that your personnel —American veterans hired as private security contractors—were brought into Israel on tourist visas inappropriate for the intended purpose of their travel, sent to Gaza armed for combat, and ordered by Israeli officials to use lethal force against unarmed and starving Palestinian civilians. We have also learned that under Israeli orders, your personnel are conducting crowd control at food distribution sites by firing live rounds over the heads of civilians and using stun grenades and pepper spray—all in an active military zone under direct supervision by Israeli military officers.  

    As a result, we are deeply concerned that you may have failed to alert your personnel —or investors—of the immense legal risks they face for conducting what amounts to military operations on behalf of the Israeli government on land outside of the State of Israel.   

    Even before the latest revelations, press had reported on Israeli military actions that include the wanton destruction of civilian homes, the use of human shields, rules of engagement resulting in disproportionate civilian casualties, and blockage of medicine and food. More than 50,000 children have already been killed or injured in Gaza, and as we write, infant boys and girls are starving to death. Prime Minister Netanyahu, in response to a question concerning remaining legitimate targets to strike, is reported to have said “I don’t care about the targets” and ordered military officials to “destroy the homes, bomb everything in Gaza. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is reported to have said, “Gaza will be totally destroyed… They will be totally despairing… and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.” As a result of these actions, U.S. allies have already cut off the supply of offensive weapons to Israel. 

    We, therefore, ask that you urgently respond to the following questions: 

    1. What are the Rules of Engagement currently in effect for your staff in Gaza and what is the nature of their command-and-control relationship with Israeli military officers and government officials? 
    1. Did you inform your investors and staff prior to their departure from the United States that they are subject to U.S. criminal law prohibiting torture, war crimes, and forced deportation, including under the War Crimes Act? And further, that they could be held legally responsible for crimes by Israeli forces when those actions were enabled or facilitated by your operations? 
    1. Did you inform prospective staff and investors that they could face civil suits upon return to the United States under the Torture Prevention Act by Americans and the families of Americans harmed in Gaza? 
    1. Did you inform your staff that the International Criminal Court and third states may exercise jurisdiction over war crimes in Gaza and that they could consider your American staff as combatants for purposes of liability, potentially limiting future freedom of travel to other countries?  
    1. How is your organization documenting activities in Gaza and what happens to that data? We request that you preserve all documents and communications related to your contracts and work with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.  

    We respectfully request a response withing two weeks.  

    Sincerely, 

     CC: 

    • Charles J. Africano (“Chuck”/“Joe”), Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) 
    • Kevin Sullivan, UG Solutions 
    • Jennifer C, UG Solutions 
    • Lou Rassey, Chief Executive Officer, McNally Capital, Chicago IL 
    • Ward McNally, Founder, Co-CEO, and Managing Partner, McNally Capital, Chicago IL 
    • Brian Grogan, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Compliance Officer, McNally Capital, Chicago IL 
    • Ravi Shah, Partner, McNally Capital, Chicago IL 
    • Joel Revill, Chief Executive Officer, Two Ocean Trust, Jackson Hole WY  
    • Albert Forkner, Chief Risk and Compliance Officer, Two Ocean Trust, Jackson Hole WY 
    • Dustin Sventy, Chief Investment Officer, Two Ocean Trust, Jackson Hole WY  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Colombia is producing more cocaine than ever – and more is reaching Australian shores

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cesar Alvarez, Lecturer in Terrorism and Security Studies, Charles Sturt University

    Members of the Colombian anti-narcotics police test cocaine after a drug bust. RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP via Getty Images

    Imagine an area larger than the Australian Capital Territory, nearly twice the size of London and four times that of New York City covered in coca plantations.

    That’s the scale of Colombia’s coca cultivation, according to an estimate from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

    Colombia produces an estimated 2,664 metric tonnes of cocaine annually. That is enough to fill 20 Boeing 747 cargo planes per year.

    Not even during the darkest days of Pablo Escobar’s infamous empire did Colombia cultivate as much coca or produce as much cocaine as it does today.

    In the past year alone, coca crops expanded by 10% and production capacity soared more than 50%.

    So how did it come to this?

    A worrying mix

    Colombia did not arrive at this point overnight, nor by chance. A complex mix of radical and failed policy shifts, scientific innovation and global demand, among other factors, has shaped this trajectory.

    For example, in 2015, Colombia’s Constitutional Court suspended aerial fumigation and banned the use of glyphosate. Despite the herbicide’s effectiveness in killing coca plants, the court cited concerns over its health risks and environmental impact.

    Aerial spraying had allowed the government to reduce the risk that manual eradication brigades were exposed to over large areas.

    In 2016, then-president Juan Manuel Santos introduced a scheme to substitute coca with non-illicit plants. Incentives were offered to farmers. However, it ended up encouraging many peasants who had never grown coca before to begin cultivating it, simply to qualify for the new subsidies.

    It is no surprise that during Santos’ second term (2014–18), Colombia’s coca crops nearly doubled, from 96,000 hectares to more than 170,000.

    This was all in an effort to secure a peace deal with the narco-terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

    More recently, in 2022, President Gustavo Petro announced his Paz Total (Total Peace) policy. This was designed to bring trafficking organisations – including Colombia’s second largest narco-terrorist group, the National Liberation Army (ELN) – to the negotiation table.

    Ironically, and paradoxically, Colombia is now producing more drugs than ever. It is also experiencing a sharp increase in violence by non-state armed groups.

    The impact on Australia

    What happens in Colombia matters to Australia because criminal innovation is fuelling greater cocaine volumes and higher purity. This means more is flowing towards Australian shores.

    Colombia’s coca production is being reshaped by enhanced cultivation techniques, more secure and autonomous smuggling methods, and an increasingly fragmented criminal landscape.

    Production is now more efficient and profitable than ever. Growers are planting improved coca leaf varieties and achieve more harvest cycles per year with higher alkaloid yields per kilo.

    Smuggling methods have also evolved.

    Semi-submersibles or narco-submarines are increasing in storage capacity. Recent seizures show manned vessels with four to five tonnes of capacity are now the rule rather than the exception.

    Some networks are also transitioning from manned to unmanned operations.

    Also, the growing presence and operational influence of Mexican cartels in Colombia has amplified the scope and scale of alliances between transnational organised crime groups across Europe, Asia and Oceania. International police investigations are even more complex.

    Like much of the world, there is a growing demand for and increasing use of cocaine in Australia.

    Despite record-high seizure numbers and total volumes intercepted, Australia is still among the most attractive destination markets for drug trafficking organisations because of the high price users pay for the drugs.

    Unless something radically changes in Colombia, Australia continues to face growing risks from maritime trafficking routes. There is also an increased threat of being used as a transit and money laundering hub in the global drug economy.

    Some possible solutions

    Even if conditions in Colombia were to change swiftly and drastically, supply-focused strategies alone are insufficient to mitigate the risks facing Australia.

    After all, Colombia cannot simply fumigate its way out of this cocaine crisis, just as Australia cannot arrest its way out of it.

    However, continued collaboration between the Australian Federal Police and the National Police of Colombia remains essential to keep drugs at bay.

    The appointment of Colombia’s first police attaché to Australia will be a welcome and meaningful step forward. (While not yet formally announced, the Colombian embassy in Australia has informed me and several other experts the country is appointing the attaché.)

    Both countries must deepen this relationship and collectively engage meaningfully and frequently to help solve the problem.

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

    – ref. Colombia is producing more cocaine than ever – and more is reaching Australian shores – https://theconversation.com/colombia-is-producing-more-cocaine-than-ever-and-more-is-reaching-australian-shores-261745

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Industrial-scale deepfake abuse caused a crisis in South Korean schools. Here’s how Australia can avoid the same fate

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Scanlan, Senior Lecturer in Health Information Management, University of Tasmania

    South Korea’s deepfake crisis triggered a wave of protests in 2024. Anthony WALLACE / AFP

    Australian schools are seeing a growing number of incidents in which students have created deepfake sexualised imagery of their classmates. The eSafety Commissioner has urged schools to monitor the situation.

    In 2024, the problem of deepfakes became a crisis in South Korea: more than 500 schools and universities were targeted in a coordinated wave of deepfake sexual abuse.

    AI-generated sexualised images of students — mostly girls — were circulated in encrypted Telegram groups. The perpetrators were often classmates of the victims.

    A new report from global child-protection group ECPAT with funding from the UK-based Churchill Fellowship takes a close look at what happened in Korea, so other countries can understand and avoid similar crises. Here’s what Australia can learn.

    A glimpse into our future?

    The events in South Korea were not just about deepfake technology. They were about how the technology was used.

    Perpetrators created groups on the Telegram messaging platform to identify mutual acquaintances in local schools or universities. They then formed “Humiliation Rooms” to gather victims’ photos and personal information so they could create deepfake sexual images.

    Rooms for more than 500 schools and universities have been identified, often with thousands of members. The rooms were filled with deepfake imagery, created from photos on social media and the school yearbook.

    Bots within the app allowed users to generate AI nudes in seconds. One such bot had more than 220,000 subscribers. The bot gave users two deepfake images for free, with additional images available for the equivalent of one Australian dollar.

    Telegram screenshots show an automated deepfake bot that charges users to produce images.
    Telegram

    This wasn’t the dark web. It was happening on a mainstream platform, used by millions.

    And it wasn’t just adult predators. More than 80% of those arrested were teenagers. Many were described as “normal boys” by their teachers — students who had never shown signs of violent behaviour before.

    The abuse was gamified. Users earned rewards for inviting friends, sharing images, and escalating the harm. It was social, yet anonymous.

    Could this happen in Australia?

    We have already seen smaller, less organised deepfake incidents in Australian schools. However, the huge scale and ease of use of the Korean abuse system should be cause for alarm.

    The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded 58,503 reports of pictures and videos of online child abuse in the 2023–24 financial year. This is an average of 160 reports per day (4,875 reports a month), a 45% increase from the previous year.

    This increase is likely to continue. In response to these risks, the Australian government, through the eSafety Commissioner, is applying the existing Basic Online Safety Expectations to generative AI services. This creates a clear expectation these services must work proactively to prevent the creation of harmful deepfake content.

    Internationally, the European Union’s AI Act has set a precedent for regulating high-risk AI applications, including those that affect children. In the United States, the proposed Take It Down Act aims to criminalise the publication of non-consensual intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes.

    These are a start, but a lot more work remains to be done to provide a safe online environment for young people. The Korean experience shows how easily things can escalate when these tools are used at scale, especially in peer-to-peer abuse among adolescents.

    5 lessons from Korea

    The South Korean crisis holds several lessons for Australia.

    1. Prevention must start early. Korea’s crisis involved children as young as 12 (and even younger in some primary schools targeted). We need comprehensive digital ethics and consent education in primary schools, not just in high schools.

    2. Law enforcement needs AI tools of their own to keep up. Just as offenders are using AI to scale up abuse, police must be equipped with AI to detect and investigate it. This may include facial recognition, content detection, and automated triage systems, all governed by strict privacy protocols.

    3. Platforms must also be held accountable. Telegram only began cooperating with South Korean authorities after immense public pressure. Australia must enforce safety-by-design principles and ensure encrypted platforms are not safe havens for abuse.

    4. Support services must be scaled up. Korea’s crisis caused trauma for entire communities. Victims often had to continuing going to school with perpetrators in the same classrooms. Australia must invest in trauma-informed support systems that can respond to both individual and collective harm.

    5. We must listen to victims and survivors. Policy must be shaped by those who have experienced digital abuse. Their insights are crucial to designing effective and compassionate responses.

    The Korean crisis didn’t happen overnight. The warning signs were there: in 2023 Korea produced more than half the world’s celebrity deepfakes). This has been accompanied by rising misogyny online and the proliferation of AI tools. But they were ignored until it was too late. Australia mustn’t make the same mistake.

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

    – ref. Industrial-scale deepfake abuse caused a crisis in South Korean schools. Here’s how Australia can avoid the same fate – https://theconversation.com/industrial-scale-deepfake-abuse-caused-a-crisis-in-south-korean-schools-heres-how-australia-can-avoid-the-same-fate-262322

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Budd, Gillibrand, Lummis Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Stop Illegal Use of Digital Assets by Criminals and Terrorists

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)

    Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) was joined by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) in reintroducing the Financial Technology Protection Act. The bipartisan bill aims to address the illegal use of financial technologies and digital assets to prevent sanctions evasion, terrorist financing, and money laundering.

    “While financial technologies are driving innovation and expanding individual freedom, criminals and terrorists are exploiting digital assets – putting both our financial and national security at risk. We must take these threats seriously and work toward solutions that put a stop to this rampant criminal activity. I introduced the bipartisan Financial Technology Protection Act to do just that, because we cannot continue to ignore this illicit abuse or hinder this pro-growth technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation before these crimes and threats escalate further,” said Senator Budd.

    “As financial technology continues to evolve, we must ensure it strengthens, not threatens, our national security. The bipartisan Financial Technology Protection Act would establish an independent working group that brings together government agencies, regulators, and industry experts to proactively identify emerging risks and develop robust, innovative solutions. This collaborative discourse will ensure we can keep our financial systems safe while bolstering the United States’ leadership on digital asset innovation on the global stage. This bipartisan legislation has already passed the House four times, including a unanimous vote in House Financial Services earlier this month. I look forward to working with Senator Budd to advance it in the Senate,” said Senator Gillibrand.

    “Digital assets are the future of American financial innovation and it is critical that as we craft pro-growth legislation that we also maintain security standards. The Financial Technology Protection Act strikes the right balance of developing safeguards against illicit activities without stifling the innovation that makes our digital economy thrive. I am proud to join Senator Budd in securing America’s position as a leader in the digital asset space while protecting consumers and maintaining the integrity of our financial system,” said Senator Lummis.   

    Read the full bill text HERE.

    BACKGROUND 

    Financial Technology Protection Act:

    • Establishes an independent working group to combat terrorism and illicit financing, made up of:
      • Representatives from the following agencies: Department of the Treasury, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Drug Enforcement Administration.
      • Private sector participation from: Financial Technology Companies, Blockchain Intelligence Companies, Financial Institutions, Research Organizations, and Privacy and Civil Liberties Organizations.

    Senator Budd’s legislation was included in the Senate’s market structure bill, led by Senate Subcommittee on Digital Assets Chair Lummis. This legislative package will provide the crypto industry with the regulatory certainty needed to unlock new investments and innovation.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Crapo Announces Finance Committee Staff Updates

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Idaho Mike Crapo

    Washington, D.C.–Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) today announced the following staff updates:

    Molly Newell, Chief International Trade Counsel

    Molly has been promoted to Chief International Trade Counsel. Molly joined the Finance Committee in January 2023 from Hogan Lovells US LLP, where she was an associate in the International Trade and Investment practice group working on issues involving trade remedies, customs, and U.S. trade policy. Before Hogan Lovells, she was a Senior Legislative Assistant in Representative Luke Messer’s (R-Indiana) office. Molly holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center; a Master in Economic Law from Sciences Po; and a B.A. in French and International Studies from Indiana University.

    Brian Bombassaro, International Trade Counsel

    Brian rejoined the Committee in March after working as a Senior Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP. Prior to that, he served under former Finance Committee Chairmen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, M.P.P. from the Harvard Kennedy School and B.S.B.A. and B.A. from the University of Florida.

    Caitlin Wilson, Senior Health Counsel

    Caitlin joins the Committee from the Senate Budget Committee, where she participated in the reconciliation process to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as senior counsel. She previously served as counsel to Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) and the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington). She received her J.D. from Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and her B.A. in Political Science from Gettysburg College.

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Lieu, Daines, and McClintock Reintroduce Legislation to Protect Americans from Warrantless Government Surveillance

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    July 31, 2025

    The bill protects the rights of Americans by stopping agencies from using “stingray” phone surveillance to track mobile devices without a warrant

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., with Senator Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Representatives Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Tom McClintock, R-Calif., reintroduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation today to defend Americans’ rights by requiring warrants to deploy cell site simulators, also known as “stingray” devices, which are used by law enforcement agencies to track individuals and identify all phones in an area.

    The Cell Site Simulator Warrant Act creates clear legal standards for government agencies using stingray devices by requiring warrants and establishing penalties for unlawful surveillance.

    “Law enforcement agencies need clear and transparent rules about when it’s acceptable to use stingray phone surveillance, so they can properly investigate crimes without endangering Americans’ privacy or violating their constitutional rights,” Wyden said. “Our bipartisan bill protects Americans against warrantless stingray surveillance while setting clear rules for law enforcement about when and how they can use these devices.”

    “The last thing Montanans want is big government surveillance, including from the use of cell site simulators,” Daines said. “Montana already has commonsense warrant requirements for stingray use, and I’m glad to join with my colleagues on this bipartisan bill to make Montana’s requirements the law of the land.”

    “Our cell phones can contain all sorts of sensitive information — we need common sense solutions to ensure our data is protected,” Lieu said. “Cell site simulators (CSS) mimic cell towers and can be used by law enforcement to locate phones and collect large swaths of sensitive data from the public. I’m reintroducing this bipartisan legislation with my colleagues to set clear warrant requirements for using CSS and uphold the civil liberties of all Americans.”

    The Cell Site Simulator Warrant Act would:

    • Establish a probable cause warrant requirement for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to use a CSS. Like wiretaps, CSS must be a last resort tool when other methods have or are likely to fail.

    • Permit emergency use, enabling the government to get a court order after the fact.

    • Require that judges be informed about all potential side effects, including jamming 9-1-1 calls, as determined by an independent lab, while weighing the government’s surveillance interests against the impact to the community and public safety.

    • Require that data collected using a CSS from bystanders’ devices be minimized.

    • Create similar rules for intelligence agencies’ use of CSS authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, including targeting of Americans abroad.

    • Provide for fines up to $250,000 for entities that illegally operate a CSS, except for using a CSS by those engaged in good-faith research or teaching.

    • Provide individuals illegally surveilled with a private right of action.

    • Require annual Inspector General reports on federal agencies’ using CSS.

    This legislation is the latest in Wyden’s years-long effort to conduct oversight in the government’s use of cell site simulators. In 2017, Wyden and other senators asked the Justice Department to update its policy to inform judges of the devices’ potential to interfere with 9-1-1 and other calls. In 2018, Wyden renewed that request, and later asked the Federal Communications Commission to ensure cell site simulators do not disrupt emergency calls.

    The text of the bill is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –