Category: Transport

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Offers $25,000 Rewards for Information on Guilford County Murders

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Offers $25,000 Rewards for Information on Guilford County Murders

    Governor Offers $25,000 Rewards for Information on Guilford County Murders
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Today, Governor Josh Stein announced that the state is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the murder of John Boone, age 49. The state also is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the murder of Jakaylen Chambers, age 14.

    On January 26, 2022, John Boone was discovered dead from a gunshot wound near the intersection of Lakewood Drive and Futrelle Drive in High Point. Mr. Boone was deaf and non-verbal.

    Anyone having information concerning this case should contact High Point Police Department at (336) 887-7970, Crime Stoppers of High Point at (336) 889-4000, or the State Bureau of Investigation at (919) 662-4500.  

    On February 1, 2022, officers were alerted to a shooting on McPherson Street in Greensboro. Upon arrival, officers located 14-year-old Jakaylen Chambers, who was suffering from a gunshot wound. He was transported to a hospital where he was pronounced deceased.

    Anyone having information about this case should contact the Greensboro Police Department at (336) 373-7543, Greensboro/Guilford Crime Stoppers at (336) 574-4020, or the State Bureau of Investigation at (919) 662-4500.

    Apr 22, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI: Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp Announces the Pricing of $200,000,000 Initial Public Offering

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, NY, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp (the “Company”) announced today the pricing of its initial public offering of 20,000,000 units. The units are expected to be listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and begin trading tomorrow, April 23, 2025, under the ticker symbol “TVACU.” Each unit consists of one Class A ordinary share and one-half of one redeemable warrant, each whole warrant entitling the holder thereof to purchase one Class A ordinary share at a price of $11.50 per share, subject to certain adjustments. No fractional warrants will be issued upon separation of the units and only whole warrants will trade. Once the securities constituting the units begin separate trading, the Class A ordinary shares and warrants are expected to be listed on Nasdaq under the symbols “TVA” and “TVACW,” respectively. The offering is expected to close on April 24, 2025, subject to customary closing conditions. The Company has granted the underwriters a 45-day option to purchase up to an additional 3,000,000 units at the initial public offering price to cover over-allotments, if any.

    The Company is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, amalgamation, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The Company may pursue an acquisition opportunity in any business, industry or geographical location. The Company’s primary focus, however, will be on targets focused on industrial technology, specifically companies implementing advanced technologies including software, mobile and IoT applications, digital and energy transition and consolidation, logistics and transportation, cloud and cyber communications as well as high bandwidth services, including LTE, remote sensing and 5G communications into the industrial sector. The Company will pursue completing a business combination with a target that presents a significant value proposition to its customer marketplace, including major cost reductions in the field, substantial returns on investment (ROI), a considerable decrease in carbon footprint, and/or vast improvements in safety, compliance, and environmental protocol.

    The Company’s management team is led by E. Scott Crist, its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”), and R. Greg Smith, its Chief Financial Officer. The Board also includes Andrew Clark, Harvin Moore, and Aruna Viswanathan.

    Cohen & Company Capital Markets, a division of J.V.B. Financial Group, LLC, is acting as the lead book-running manager, and Clear Street LLC is acting as joint book-runner for the offering.

    The offering is being made only by means of a prospectus. When available, copies of the prospectus may be obtained from Cohen & Company Capital Markets, 3 Columbus Circle, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Attention: Prospectus Department, or by email at capitalmarkets@cohencm.com.

    A registration statement relating to the securities has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and became effective on April 22, 2025. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains statements that constitute “forward-looking statements,” including with respect to the proposed initial public offering and search for an initial business combination. No assurance can be given that the offering discussed above will be completed on the terms described, or at all.

    Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for the Company’s initial public offering filed with the SEC. Copies of these documents are available on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law.

    Investor Contacts

    Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp
    E. Scott Crist
    scott@texasventures.com
    713-599-1300

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Peters Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Expand Research of Emerging Driver Assistance Systems and Improve Roadway Safety

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to expand its research of emerging driver assistance systems, helping to improve roadway safety for Americans.

    Many vehicles on our roadways today are equipped with advanced driver assistance features, including collision warnings, automatic emergency braking, and lane keeping assistance. Through its Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety (PARTS) Program, NHTSA can access real-world data from vehicles equipped with these safety features and study their effectiveness. However, under current law, the PARTS Program is limited in the amount and type of safety data it can handle. The Vehicle Safety Research Act – which Peters introduced with U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-IN) – would codify the PARTS Program and unlock an expanded range of data collection and information sharing between automakers and the government that will help accelerate both deployment and oversight of advanced safety technologies.  

    “Millions of Americans depend on driver assistance systems every day, and we must ensure our highway safety experts are able to analyze how these emerging features improve roadway safety,” said Senator Peters. “This legislation would help support the development and deployment of the most innovative technologies found on our roadways today, which is essential to saving lives.” 

    “The Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety has been an important collaboration between automakers like Ford and NHTSA for many years. Investing in this public-private partnership plays an important role in keeping Americans safe in their communities,” said Emily Frascaroli, Global Director, Automotive Safety Office at Ford Motor Company. 

    “GM remains committed to the PARTS program and its industry-wide collaborative mission to support advanced driver assistance systems development,” said Regina Carto, Vice President of GM Global Product Safety, Systems and Certification. “Benchmark data from the program helps us all raise the bar in vehicle safety performance. We appreciate the leadership of Senator Peters and Senator Young on this important initiative.” 

    “Vehicles on the road continue to get even more safe as automakers test, develop and integrate breakthrough driver assistance and crash avoidance technologies like automatic emergency braking that help save lives and prevent injuries. Safety is a top priority for the auto industry – and the introduction of the Vehicle Safety Research Act to support NHTSA’s voluntary PARTS program shows it’s a top priority for Senators Peters and Young too,” said John Bozzella, President and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. 

    “Accelerating advanced technology is a key pillar of the Road to Zero vision to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities from traffic crashes. The PARTS program has helped validate technology countermeasures in hundreds of vehicles used by the American public and with sustained support will be able to examine the safety benefits of connected vehicle technology. NSC supports the efforts of Senators Peters and Young to codify this important program within the United States Department of Transportation,” said Mark Chung, Executive Vice President, Safety Leadership & Advocacy, National Safety Council. 

    “AAA’s commitment to advocating for safer roads is a mission that began over 100 years ago. We support the Vehicle Safety Research Act, which aims to improve road safety by ensuring continued collaboration between automakers and NHTSA to share and analyze real-world driving data. This collaboration will deepen our understanding of how new vehicle technologies affect driver behavior and roadway safety. This work is critical to achieving our goal of preventing crashes and saving lives,” said AAA President and CEO Gene Boehm.

    The PARTS Program is a partnership between automakers and NHTSA in which participants voluntarily share safety-related data for collaborative safety analysis. Today, the program has access to data from 98 million vehicles, including 168 different vehicle models that would not have been possible without this public-private partnership.  

    The Vehicle Safety Research Act would ensure that this program continues and expands to new technologies and new types of safety data collection. It also provides for new protection for data shared exclusively through the PARTS program to ensure that any sensitive information related to these cutting-edge technologies is secure. 

    The automakers currently participating in the PARTS program include: Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Stellantis, American Honda Motor, Hyundai Motor North America, Mazda North American Operations, Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Subaru Corporation, Toyota Motor North America. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pressley, Markey, Warren Demand Answers About Trump Administration’s Gross Misconduct of Immigration Enforcement System

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Following the Abduction and Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, Pressley, Markey, and Warren Sound the Alarm on the Trump Administration’s Unjust Deportation Agenda

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote today to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons demanding answers about the Trump administration’s concerning pattern of ripping individuals from their communities and shipping them to jurisdictions more favorable to the Trump administration’s deportation agenda.

    Last month, six plainclothes ICE agents apprehended Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and fifth-year doctoral student at Tufts University, in broad daylight in Somerville, Massachusetts. ICE then moved Öztürk in a circuitous route through various states before placing her on a flight to Louisiana, miles away from her friends, lawyers, and community. The available evidence suggests that ICE did not transfer Öztürk to a Louisiana detention facility due to a lack of bed space in New England—as the government has claimed—but instead in an attempt to hand-pick the courts that will decide her case. These actions raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of our immigration enforcement system.

    In the letter, the lawmakers write, “In court filings, immigration lawyers described ICE’s treatment of Öztürk as irregular, declaring they had never seen or heard of an ICE detainee arrested in Massachusetts be so quickly shuttled out of Massachusetts and to multiple separate locations. This quick movement—coupled with the government’s delayed notice regarding a detainee’s whereabouts—risks frustrating the filing of habeas petitions.”

    The lawmakers continue, “The government has since argued that Öztürk’s legal challenge must be heard in Louisiana, within the Fifth Circuit, where she is currently detained—a jurisdiction known for its strict immigration rulings. According to Mary Yanik, a clinical associate professor of law at Tulane University, in Louisiana the majority of ICE detention centers are within the jurisdiction of Louisiana’s Western District, which is the ‘slowest moving’ of the district courts in the state, very conservative, and whose release of detainees by formal order is ‘exceedingly rare.’ Decisions from federal district courts and immigration courts in Louisiana can eventually be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which the Center for American Progress has described as ‘arguably the most right-wing federal appellate court in the country.’ Legal experts and immigrant rights advocates have noted a troubling pattern in which ICE transfers detainees to jurisdictions with stricter immigration enforcement—such as Louisiana—thereby increasing the likelihood of deportation and limiting detainees’ access to legal representation and family support.”

    The lawmakers request answers to the following questions by May 6, 2025:

    • What specific criteria led ICE to determine that no bed space was available for Öztürk in New England?
    • Why was Öztürk transported to New Hampshire and Vermont before being flown to Louisiana, rather than being placed in a nearby facility in Massachusetts? Why was Öztürk transported to three separate locations in three different states before being flown to Louisiana?
    • When was the decision made to transport Öztürk to Louisiana? Who made this decision? What steps and protocols were undertaken in this decision-making process?
    • What is the total cost incurred by the government for Öztürk’s transportation from her arrest to her arrival in Louisiana, including flights and other logistical expenses?
    • Did the jurisdictional implications of placing Öztürk in Louisiana, within a federal judicial circuit known for its pro-government immigration rulings, factor into ICE’s decision to transfer her there?
    • What policies and procedures are in place to prevent forum shopping by ICE in detainee transfers?
    • Given the documented history of abuse and inadequate legal access at ICE detention facilities in Louisiana, what justifications does ICE have for continuing to send detainees there?

    Congresswoman Pressley, along with Sens. Warren and Markey, have pushed for answers and action since Öztürk’s March arrest.

    On April 18th, 2025, after a recent report indicated that an internal State Department memo concluded that the key premise underlying Rümeysa Öztürk’s arrest and detention was false, Congresswoman Pressley and Senators Warren and Markey sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding the release of the department’s memo and other relevant documentation.

    Last month, they led over 30 lawmakers in writing to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Todd Lyons, demanding information about Öztürk’s arrest and detention as well as similar incidents across the country. The lawmakers also sounded the alarm on Öztürk’s medical neglect in DHS custody and renewed urgent calls for her release.

    Last month, Congresswoman Pressley issued a statement condemning reports that ICE arrested and detained Rümeysa Öztürk. Earlier that week, Congresswoman Pressley issued a statement following reports of ICE activity in Boston and other municipalities in Massachusetts.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Announces 50th Anniversary Celebration at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania

    Source: US State of Pennsylvania

    April 22, 2025Strasburg,PA

    Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Announces 50th Anniversary Celebration at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania

    The Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission (PHMC) celebrated the golden anniversary of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. This significant milestone marks 50 years to the day since the world-class museum of railroad history first opened its doors to the public in 1975.

    “The 50th anniversary of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania is a testament to the enduring power and significance of our state’s rich industrial and transportation heritage,” said Andrea Lowery, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. “As the Commonwealth’s official railroad museum, it has captivated and educated generations, and we at PHMC are immensely proud of its past achievements and excited to support its continued journey in preserving and sharing this vital part of our history for the next 50 years and beyond.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Transmission of Monetary Policy

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Juan Pablo. I am delighted to be speaking at the University of Minnesota because, in many ways, this visit feels like a homecoming for me.1 I was born right here in Minneapolis, before I moved to Colombia as a young child. My parents told me so many wonderful stories about this area and the university. My father studied for his Ph.D. here at the economics department. He studied under accomplished economists, including Anne Krueger, Leo Hurwicz, John Buttrick, and Ed Foster, the latter of whom is still here as an emeritus professor. The University of Minnesota has made many contributions to the field of economics and has historically had a close relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So you really are part of the Fed’s extended family, and it is an honor to speak with you.
    Today, I would like to speak with you about the transmission of the Fed’s monetary policy. I will discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy, then touch on how I monitor its transmission, and, lastly, talk about two elements related to transmission that I evaluate when making monetary policy decisions. Those elements are the long and variable lags of monetary policy and whether its transmission is asymmetric and has changed over time. But before I delve into my primary topic, I would like to start by offering my views on the economic outlook.
    Economic OutlookThe U.S. economy has grown at a solid pace, with real gross domestic product (GDP) expanding 2.5 percent last year. Activity indicators in the first few months of this year show healthy numbers. Last week, the March retail sales release showed resilient consumption, with positive revisions for January and February numbers. However, measures of household sentiment, such as surveys from the University of Michigan, Conference Board, and Morning Consult, have shown signs of softness, albeit to varying degrees. Many survey respondents report that their views reflect trade policy concerns, though, as we have seen, the exact contours of those policies are still taking shape. Thus, GDP growth for the first quarter, which will be reported next week, may show some moderation relative to what we saw in 2024, although this moderation may be offset by increased purchases front-loading the implementation of tariffs. Financial markets have experienced increased volatility in recent weeks. If financial conditions were to tighten persistently, that could weigh on growth in the future.
    The labor market remains solid, but the pace of hiring has eased during this year. In the first quarter, U.S. employers added 152,000 jobs per month, on average, compared with a monthly pace of 168,000, on average, last year. The unemployment rate edged up last month to 4.2 percent, but it is still low and has remained near its current level since last summer. Moreover, initial jobless claims have remained stable at low levels. Those numbers are consistent with other measures indicating that the labor market is broadly in balance.
    With respect to inflation, progress has slowed since last summer, and inflation remains above the 2 percent goal. Based on the consumer price index (CPI) and producer price index (PPI) data, the 12-month change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index was estimated to have been 2.3 percent last month and 2.6 percent for the core categories, which exclude food and energy.
    I pay careful attention to two subcategories of inflation: first, core goods—which are goods outside of volatile food and energy products—and, second, nonhousing market-based services, which are based on transactions and not imputed prices, such as car maintenance and haircuts. Goods inflation was negative in most of 2024—as was the norm for several years before the pandemic—but it increased to 0.4 percent in January and February. In March, the CPI and PPI releases pointed to goods inflation decreasing to a still-positive 0.1 percent, which is better news. By contrast, nonhousing market services inflation stayed elevated through March, at an estimated 3.4 percent. That category often provides a good signal of inflationary pressures across all services. As we look ahead, while the long-run level of tariffs is still to be determined, tariffs have moved significantly higher this year. That will likely put upward pressure on prices. For instance, both survey- and market-based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up. Longer-term inflation expectations—those beyond the next few years—largely remain well anchored and consistent with our 2 percent inflation goal, and I hope they continue in that way.
    I am closely monitoring incoming data and the cumulative effects on both sides of our mandate from policies in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. I am also monitoring any risks to the outlook, especially upside risks on inflation or downside risks to employment. Still, I think our monetary policy is well positioned for changes in the macroeconomic environment. Thus, I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. I remain committed to achieving both of our dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices.
    Overview of Monetary Policy TransmissionNow turning to the primary topic of my speech, I will first discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy. In this section, I will give some examples from the recent past as a tool for explaining my arguments, but I am not intending to comment further on the latest developments in the economy.
    Understanding the transmission of monetary policy starts with understanding how the Federal Reserve uses its policy tools. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) adjusts the target range for the federal funds rate, or the rate that banks pay for overnight borrowing. Setting the federal funds rate is the primary means by which the Fed adjusts the stance of monetary policy, among its range of monetary policy tools. In addition to the FOMC directly adjusting the federal funds rate, Fed policymakers’ communications about the future path of monetary policy may also result in changes to longer-term interest rates because households’ and businesses’ expectations about future policy affect the level of interest rates.
    Adjustments to the federal funds rate affect a multitude of financial conditions faced by consumers and businesses. For example, changes to the federal funds rate filter through to the interest rates lenders charge for loans to businesses and households as well as to what financial institutions pay in interest on deposits. The current and expected future path of the federal funds rate also affects asset prices, as it changes the relative attractiveness of different investments, such as stocks and real estate. Fluctuations in both interest rates and asset prices affect a household’s wealth and a corporation’s balance sheet, which can, in turn, affect the terms under which they can borrow.2 I have discussed some of the most common ways in which policy is transmitted. There are, of course, other important channels, such as exchange rates and international spillovers, that I will not discuss today. Research suggests that the channels of transmission are extensive and ever evolving.3
    Consumers and businesses make decisions based on financial conditions.4 For illustrative purposes, let’s consider a period when FOMC policymakers view it as appropriate to ease the restrictiveness of monetary policy by reducing the target range for the federal funds rate over time. The resulting lower interest rates on consumer loans elicit greater spending on goods and services, particularly on durable goods that are often financed. Lower mortgage rates can encourage renters to buy a home by reducing the monthly payment borrowers face and can encourage existing homeowners to refinance their mortgages to free up cash for other purchases. Lower interest rates can make holding equities more attractive, which raises stock prices and adds to wealth. Higher wealth tends to spur more spending, as households tend to consume at least a portion of their increased wealth. Investment projects that businesses previously believed would be marginally unprofitable become attractive because of reduced financing costs, particularly if businesses expect their sales to rise. Expecting a better macroeconomic environment and lower delinquency rates down the road, banks may loosen their lending standards on approving loans for households and businesses. All these decisions support aggregate demand and may put upward pressure on inflation.
    Of course, there are periods when policymakers see it as appropriate to increase the level of restraint placed on the economy by raising the federal funds rate over time. That may occur when policymakers are seeking to lower inflation. Then, the monetary policy effects I just described would be reversed, putting downward pressure on aggregate demand and inflation.
    Developments in Monetary Policy and Financial ConditionsLet me now discuss how I view the transmission and the stance of monetary policy during the past few quarters. To be clear, I will not discuss the developments in financial markets over the past few weeks.
    In the second half of last year, I gained greater confidence that inflation was on a sustainable path toward the FOMC’s 2 percent objective. I also wanted to preserve the strength I saw in the labor market. As a result, I supported the FOMC’s decision to decrease the target range for the federal funds rate by a total of 1 percentage point during the meetings from September through December. However, even before the Committee began to ease policy, some financial conditions started to ease. This easing can be seen in the Financial Conditions Impulse on Growth index.5 That index, developed by Federal Reserve Board staff, showed easier financial conditions from March 2024. And through January, the demand for loans by households and businesses picked up.6 In the early months of the year, financial conditions, however, remained somewhat restrictive, as borrowing costs continued to be elevated and bank credit moderately tight. Through March, interest rates on short-term small business loans had only edged down since their post-pandemic peak.7 Banks stopped tightening lending standards after nine consecutive quarters, but they left standards unchanged in January.8 These financial conditions helped to moderate aggregate demand and aid in moving inflation sustainably toward our 2 percent target.
    Details of Monetary Policy TransmissionMonitoring the financial conditions I just described is one important way I evaluate how well the Fed’s monetary policy is being transmitted to the rest of the economy. But it is not the only way. I also consider two other elements that play important roles in the transmission of our monetary policy.
    Timing MattersThe first element to evaluate is the timing with which monetary policy affects the macroeconomy. The contemporary economics literature uses a variety of statistical models to estimate the effects of what are called monetary policy “shocks.” Those are movements in the policy rate that are not explained by estimates of how monetary policy systematically responds to incoming economic and financial data and are not anticipated by the public.9 Focusing on the estimated effects of these shocks helps isolate the consequences solely coming from monetary policy actions and communications. One lesson that emerges from this research is that, broadly speaking, it turns out that Milton Friedman’s “long and variable lags” concept still holds.10 A selection of key studies on the topic estimates that it takes about one to two years for the maximum effects of policy to be observed in economic activity and inflation.11 These long lags in monetary policy affecting the economy point to why it is important for policymakers to anticipate economic conditions as best as possible and try to be proactive about understanding the effects of different shocks to the economy, so they can act quickly when needed.
    Direction of TravelThe second element to consider when making decisions related to monetary policy is whether its transmission has been equally impactful during different points in time. For example, credible evidence indicates that contractionary monetary shocks may generally decrease economic activity more strongly than expansionary shocks increase it.12 To understand these asymmetric effects, consider the following illustrative metaphor used by Marriner Eccles, who led the Fed back in the 1930s.
    Imagine a string with monetary policy at one end and the economy at the other. Employing tight monetary policy when inflation is rising is like pulling on the string to keep the economy in check—it works fairly well. But attempting to stimulate the economy with loose policy during a downturn is like trying to push on the string to move the economy—a more difficult task.
    There is evidence of this asymmetry in consumer spending on long-lasting durable goods, such as vehicles and appliances. While an easier monetary policy may lower interest rates and thus stimulate spending on durable goods in the near term, the effects of that policy may be smaller over time, as households may have already purchased durable goods.13 If a family replaces their living room furniture when rates are low, they are unlikely to need a new set of furniture a few years later and thus would not consider how current rates would change their decisions. Thus, during an easing cycle, it is reasonable to suspect that the potency of monetary policy may be somewhat diminished.
    Another example of asymmetry can be seen in the transmission of monetary policy to private lending. Board staff research documented strong growth in the period between the Global Financial Crisis and the pandemic, fueled by structural factors, such as the attractiveness of the market to borrowers and investors due to its higher customization.14 One implication of this strong growth during this past policy tightening is that monetary policy transmission to private credit markets appeared more muted relative to financing through public credit markets or bank commercial and industrial lending.
    By contrast, other factors specific to the recent period likely decreased the potency of monetary policy during the tightening cycle but may increase it during the easing cycle. When the pandemic struck and social distancing was common, many households severely curtailed spending. In addition, a historic level of government transfers boosted household income. This combination led the personal savings rate to soar.15 Recent work by Board staff suggests that these excess savings accumulated during the pandemic may have reduced the effects of tighter monetary policy over recent years.16 If households are flush with excess cash, they are less likely to respond to elevated interest rates by curtailing demand. Instead, they may have funds to avoid financing or may feel they are able to afford higher monthly payments.
    Now, some five years after the pandemic began, these excess savings are exhausted.17 This creates an environment in which monetary policy could be having its average effects on the household sector, although we should consider that the financial health of borrowers with lower credit scores has deteriorated meaningfully in recent years and credit card and auto loan delinquencies are now above pre-pandemic levels. For these households, easing monetary policy may have larger effects.
    I am closely monitoring all these possible changes in monetary policy transmission across the economy. Also, I am humbly aware that it is difficult for economists to judge the overall effect of monetary policy actions on the U.S. economy in real time.
    ConclusionTo summarize, I see inflation still running above the 2 percent target while the labor market has remained stable. But the economy is facing heightened uncertainty, with upside risks to inflation and downside risks to employment. This month, we learned that the tariff increases are significantly larger than previously expected. As a result, the economic effects of tariffs and the associated uncertainty are also likely to be larger than anticipated. It is important for monetary policymakers to broadly examine all available information, including market-based measures, surveys, and anecdotal reports, to understand what is happening in the economy as early as possible because, as I discussed, it takes time for policy to have an impact. As the direction of the economy changes, it is critical to pay close attention to real-time data and to consider the lags and asymmetries of policy transmission to ensure we respond not only to the actual movements on both sides of the mandate, but also to the risks to the economic outlook.
    As I observe the economy and consider the appropriate path of monetary policy, I am closely studying how the decisions the FOMC makes are transmitted through the economy. We have learned much about how those transmission channels work and how they may have changed in recent years, and there is much more to learn. I am confident some of that research will be done right here at the University of Minnesota. Overall, of course, when setting policy, I am guided by how best to achieve the dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices given to us by Congress because that results in the best outcomes for all Americans.
    Thank you again for such a warm welcome back to the Twin Cities.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. Such broader changes in credit conditions are called the “credit channel” of monetary policy, discussed in Ben S. Bernanke and Mark Gertler (1995), “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9 (Autumn), pp. 27–48. Return to text
    3. For evidence on how U.S. monetary policy affects exchange rates, see Martin Eichenbaum and Charles L. Evans (1995), “Some Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Shocks to Monetary Policy on Exchange Rates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110 (November), pp. 975–1009. Additionally, U.S. monetary policy also affects global financial conditions, as analyzed by Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Hélène Rey (2020), “U.S. Monetary Policy and the Global Financial Cycle,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 87 (November), pp. 2754–76. Return to text
    4. For evidence that financial conditions are a crucial part of the transmission of monetary policy, see Mark Gertler and Peter Karadi (2015), “Monetary Policy Surprises, Credit Costs, and Economic Activity,”  American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 7 (January), pp. 44–76. Return to text
    5. See Andrea Ajello, Michele Cavallo, Giovanni Favara, William B. Peterman, John Schindler, and Nitish R. Sinha (2023), “A New Index to Measure U.S. Financial Conditions” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 30). Return to text
    6. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2025), “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices.” Return to text
    7. See survey data from the National Federation of Independent Business, available at William C. Dunkelberg and Holly Wade (2025), “Small Business Economic Trends,” March, https://www.nfib.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NFIB-SBET-Report-March-2025.pdf. Return to text
    8. See Board of Governors, “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey” (note 6). Return to text
    9. For a literature review on the different ways of identifying monetary policy shocks, see V.A. Ramey (2016), “Macroeconomic Shocks and Their Propagation,” in John B. Taylor and Harald Uhlig, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 71–162. Return to text
    10. See Edward Nelson (2020), Milton Friedman and Economic Debate in the United States, 1932–1972, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 141. Return to text
    11. See the following papers: Lawrence Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, and Charles L. Evans (1999), “Monetary Policy Shocks: What Have We Learned and to What End?” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 65–148; Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer (2004), “A New Measure of Monetary Shocks: Derivation and Implications,” American Economic Review, vol. 94 (September), pp. 1055–84; Harald Uhlig (2005), “What Are the Effects of Monetary Policy on Output? Results from an Agnostic Identification Procedure,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 52 (March), pp. 381–419; Jean Boivin, Michael T. Kiley, and Frederic S. Mishkin (2010), “How Has the Monetary Transmission Mechanism Evolved over Time?” in Benjamin M. Friedman and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Monetary Economics, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 369–422; Olivier Coibion (2012), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks Big or Small?” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 4 (April), pp. 1–32; Gertler and Karadi, “Monetary Policy Surprises” (see note 4); Pooyan Amir Ahmadi and Harald Uhlig (2015), “Sign Restrictions in Bayesian FAVARs with an Application to Monetary Policy Shocks (PDF),” NBER Working Papers Series 21738 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, November); Christiane Baumeister and James D. Hamilton (2018), “Inference in Structural Vector Autoregressions When the Identifying Assumptions Are Not Fully Believed: Re-evaluating the Role of Monetary Policy in Economic Fluctuations,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 100 (December), pp. 48–65; Marek Jarociński and Peter Karadi (2020), “Deconstructing Monetary Policy Surprises—The Role of Information Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 12 (April), pp. 1–43; Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Giovanni Ricco (2021), “The Transmission of Monetary Policy Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 13 (July), pp. 74–107; and Michael D. Bauer and Eric T. Swanson (2023), “A Reassessment of Monetary Policy Surprises and High-Frequency Identification,” in Martin Eichenbaum, Erik Hurst, and Jonathan A. Parker, eds., NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2022, vol. 37 (May), pp. 87–155. Return to text
    12. See, for instance, Silvana Tenreyro and Gregory Thwaites (2016), “Pushing on a String: US Monetary Policy Is Less Powerful in Recessions,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 8 (October), pp. 43–74; Joshua D. Angrist, Òscar Jordà, and Guido M. Kuersteiner (2018), “Semiparametric Estimates of Monetary Policy Effects: String Theory Revisited,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, vol. 36 (July), pp. 371–87; and Regis Barnichon, Christian Matthes, and Tim Sablik (2017), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Asymmetric? (PDF)” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Economic Brief, vol. 3 (March), pp. 1–4. Return to text
    13. See Alisdair McKay and Johannes F. Wieland (2021), “Lumpy Durable Consumption Demand and the Limited Ammunition of Monetary Policy,” Econometrica, vol. 89 (November), pp. 2717–49. Return to text
    14. See Ahmet Degerli and Phillip J. Monin (2024), “Private Credit Growth and Monetary Policy Transmission,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2). Return to text
    15. See, for instance, Aditya Aladangady, David Cho, Laura Feiveson, and Eugenio Pinto (2022), “Excess Savings during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 21); and Francois de Soyres, Dylan Moore, and Julio L. Ortiz (2023), “Accumulated Savings during the Pandemic: An International Comparison with Historical Perspective,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 23). Return to text
    16. See Thiago R.T. Ferreira, Nils Gornemann, and Julio L. Ortiz (forthcoming), “Household Excess Savings and the Transmission of Monetary Policy,” International Journal of Central Banking. Return to text
    17. See Hamza Abdelrahman and Luiz Edgard Oliveira (2024), “Pandemic Savings Are Gone: What’s Next for U.S. Consumers?” SF Fed Blog, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, May 3. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government

    Source: US State of California

    Today, Attorney General Pamela Bondi hosted members of the President’s Cabinet at the U.S. Department of Justice for the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the federal government. The Task Force, which was established by President Trump under Executive Order 14202, was joined by peaceful Christian Americans who were unfairly targeted by the Biden Administration for their religious beliefs.

    The witnesses included:

    Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College

    • Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations. Farris is an elder at the church, previously led Alliance Defending Freedom, and served as counsel on this case.

    Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University

    • Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.

    Phil Mendes: Navy Seal

    • Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.

    “As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

    Attorney General Pamela Bondi with members of the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force at the U.S. Department of Justice

    Additionally, members of the Task Force highlighted specific cases within their own agencies where the Biden Administration unfairly and harshly punished Christian Americans for their religious beliefs.  

    FBI Director Kash Patel discussed the impact of the anti-Catholic memo issued by FBI Richmond and reiterated the FBI’s commitment to rooting out any anti-Christian bias that could be directing decisions or investigations.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised several concerning allegations of bias, including some against Christian Foreign Service Officers who preferred to homeschool their children. In one case, a family was threatened with an investigation for child abuse and curtailment if they insisted on homeschooling. In another case, a family was referred to the IRS, threatened with prosecution, and investigated by Biden’s Inspector General for insisting they homeschool their son.

    He shared how State Department employees were stigmatized for opposing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, including being called “murderers” and “troublemakers.” In one instance, an ambassador yelled at an employee, accusing the employee of wanting to kill the ambassador’s mother despite her being back in the States.

    Other reports alleged retaliation against employees for opposing DEI/LGBT ideology that violated their religious conscience. Employees recounted being required to push LGBT agendas while serving overseas, even in countries where such activity constituted a blatant violation of the acceptable religious beliefs and practices. He also detailed allegations that that religious freedom policy offices and programs were sidelined unless they were promoting DEI-related programs.

    He also highlighted how Christian holidays at American embassies under the Biden Administration were frequently stripped of any religious overtones, but non-Christian religious holidays like Losar, Eid, or Ramadan, used proper names and appropriate celebratory greetings.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed how the previous administration ordered St. Francis Health System in Oklahoma to extinguish its sanctuary candle or lose its ability to treat patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He also discussed progressive rules put in place under the Biden Administration that would make it harder for Christians to become foster parents.

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon discussed how Oregon educators Katie Medart and Rachel Sager were suspended and terminated for starting the movement, “I Resolve.” The movement spoke about gender identity education policy and offered solutions for how educators could teach without violating their conscience and also respect the rights of parents.

    Additionally, officials at the Skaneateles Central School District in New York began treating a middle-school girl as a boy without her mother’s knowledge or consent – violating their religious liberties as parents.

    Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender discussed financial surveillance under the Biden Administration, including the previous removal of certain tax classifications of Christian and pro-life organizations by the IRS, the lack of involvement within Treasury to protect organizations from the issue of debanking, and FinCEN’s identification of certain pro-Christian groups as “hate groups.”

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins discussed actions the VA took to stop the speech code that the previous administration used to punish Chaplain Trubey of the Coatesville VA Medical Center for fulfilling his duties and preaching a sermon from the Bible.

    Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Vince Haley, discussed how the previous DPC Director Neera Tanden helped lead and coordinate the Biden Administration’s efforts to push radical and anti-Christian gender ideology on kids in classrooms, foster care, sports, and healthcare.

    Additional attendees included:

    • Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General
    • Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General
    • Stanley Woodward, Nominee to be Associate Attorney General
    • Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General
    • Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense
    • Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
    • Andrew Hughes, Chief of Staff (Dep. Sec. Nom.) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    • Lori Chavez DeRemer, U.S. Secretary of Labor
    • Andrea Lucas, Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    • Cameron Hamilton, Acting Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    • Dan Bishop, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget
    • Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration
    • Pastor Paula White-Cain, Senior Advisor, White House Faith Office
    • Jennifer Korn, Faith Director, White House Faith Office

    Read the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Executive Order HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Today, Attorney General Pamela Bondi hosted members of the President’s Cabinet at the U.S. Department of Justice for the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the federal government. The Task Force, which was established by President Trump under Executive Order 14202, was joined by peaceful Christian Americans who were unfairly targeted by the Biden Administration for their religious beliefs.

    The witnesses included:

    Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College

    • Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations. Farris is an elder at the church, previously led Alliance Defending Freedom, and served as counsel on this case.

    Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University

    • Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.

    Phil Mendes: Navy Seal

    • Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.

    “As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

    Attorney General Pamela Bondi with members of the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force at the U.S. Department of Justice

    Additionally, members of the Task Force highlighted specific cases within their own agencies where the Biden Administration unfairly and harshly punished Christian Americans for their religious beliefs.  

    FBI Director Kash Patel discussed the impact of the anti-Catholic memo issued by FBI Richmond and reiterated the FBI’s commitment to rooting out any anti-Christian bias that could be directing decisions or investigations.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised several concerning allegations of bias, including some against Christian Foreign Service Officers who preferred to homeschool their children. In one case, a family was threatened with an investigation for child abuse and curtailment if they insisted on homeschooling. In another case, a family was referred to the IRS, threatened with prosecution, and investigated by Biden’s Inspector General for insisting they homeschool their son.

    He shared how State Department employees were stigmatized for opposing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, including being called “murderers” and “troublemakers.” In one instance, an ambassador yelled at an employee, accusing the employee of wanting to kill the ambassador’s mother despite her being back in the States.

    Other reports alleged retaliation against employees for opposing DEI/LGBT ideology that violated their religious conscience. Employees recounted being required to push LGBT agendas while serving overseas, even in countries where such activity constituted a blatant violation of the acceptable religious beliefs and practices. He also detailed allegations that that religious freedom policy offices and programs were sidelined unless they were promoting DEI-related programs.

    He also highlighted how Christian holidays at American embassies under the Biden Administration were frequently stripped of any religious overtones, but non-Christian religious holidays like Losar, Eid, or Ramadan, used proper names and appropriate celebratory greetings.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed how the previous administration ordered St. Francis Health System in Oklahoma to extinguish its sanctuary candle or lose its ability to treat patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He also discussed progressive rules put in place under the Biden Administration that would make it harder for Christians to become foster parents.

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon discussed how Oregon educators Katie Medart and Rachel Sager were suspended and terminated for starting the movement, “I Resolve.” The movement spoke about gender identity education policy and offered solutions for how educators could teach without violating their conscience and also respect the rights of parents.

    Additionally, officials at the Skaneateles Central School District in New York began treating a middle-school girl as a boy without her mother’s knowledge or consent – violating their religious liberties as parents.

    Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender discussed financial surveillance under the Biden Administration, including the previous removal of certain tax classifications of Christian and pro-life organizations by the IRS, the lack of involvement within Treasury to protect organizations from the issue of debanking, and FinCEN’s identification of certain pro-Christian groups as “hate groups.”

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins discussed actions the VA took to stop the speech code that the previous administration used to punish Chaplain Trubey of the Coatesville VA Medical Center for fulfilling his duties and preaching a sermon from the Bible.

    Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Vince Haley, discussed how the previous DPC Director Neera Tanden helped lead and coordinate the Biden Administration’s efforts to push radical and anti-Christian gender ideology on kids in classrooms, foster care, sports, and healthcare.

    Additional attendees included:

    • Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General
    • Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General
    • Stanley Woodward, Nominee to be Associate Attorney General
    • Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General
    • Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense
    • Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
    • Andrew Hughes, Chief of Staff (Dep. Sec. Nom.) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    • Lori Chavez DeRemer, U.S. Secretary of Labor
    • Andrea Lucas, Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    • Cameron Hamilton, Acting Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    • Dan Bishop, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget
    • Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration
    • Pastor Paula White-Cain, Senior Advisor, White House Faith Office
    • Jennifer Korn, Faith Director, White House Faith Office

    Read the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Executive Order HERE.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Manchester Man Pleads Guilty to Robbing a Credit Union in Manchester while on Federal Supervised Release

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CONCORD – A Manchester man and former resident of New York pleaded guilty in federal court to bank robbery, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

    Jesse Hippolite, 37, pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery.  U.S. District Judge Paul J. Barbadoro scheduled sentencing for August 4, 2025.

    According to the charging documents, Hippolite was previously convicted of several counts of bank robbery in federal court in the Eastern District of New York. After his release from federal prison, he was placed on supervised release and moved to New Hampshire.  On February 4, 2025, he robbed a credit union in Manchester.  He was wearing a gray beanie cap, scarf, sunglasses, and gloves to conceal his identity. He passed a note to three tellers reading:

    $100,000

    ALL $100 Bills

    *No Dye Packs

    Give Back Note

    Hippolite stole $3,139 from the bank.  A few minutes after leaving the bank, Hippolite took off the scarf that covered his face and was caught on surveillance footage.

    The charging statute provides a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross gain, whichever is greater. 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.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Manchester Police Department led the investigation. The U.S. Probation Office provided valuable assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen is prosecuting the case.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Chinese Nationals Sentenced to Federal Prison for Participating in a Fraudulent Gift Card Conspiracy Involving the Purchase and Export of Apple Products to China

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CONCORD – Three Chinese nationals were sentenced in federal court for their roles in a sophisticated Chinese gift card fraud conspiracy, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

    Naxin Wu, 26, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty to 33 months in prison and one year of supervised release.  Mengying Jiang, 34, a Chinese national residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge McCafferty to 60 months in prison and one year of supervised release. Mingdong Chen, 28, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced by Judge Joseph N. Laplante to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release.  Earlier this year, the defendants each pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.  All three defendants face deportation to China after completing their sentences.

    “The defendants played a critical role in laundering proceeds of romance and other online scams by purchasing the stolen gift cards and using them to purchase Apple products,” said Acting U.S. Attorney McCormack. “While they may not have committed the initial fraud, the defendants’ actions helped convert stolen funds into tangible goods, enabling a large-scale financial crimes conspiracy. We remain committed to dismantling every link in the fraud supply chain.”

    “These individuals were part of a Chinese transnational criminal organization that used a complex scheme to steal and launder millions of dollars through gift card theft. After a sophisticated criminal investigation with our partners, their scheme was uncovered and their crimes brought to light. Now, they’ll serve federal prison sentences and face deportation back to China,” said Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations New England Michael J. Krol.

    “The sentences imposed in New Hampshire emphasize the expansive reach of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service when it comes to dismantling criminal organizations. Anytime a criminal uses the U.S. Mail to further their illegal activity, postal inspectors will be there to bring them to justice. I’d like to thank our law enforcement partners involved in this case who, together with postal inspectors, brought these defendants to justice. This collaboration and dedication from law enforcement professionals plays a vital role in protecting the integrity of our communities from those who seek to exploit vulnerable Americans for personal gain,” said Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge, U.S. Postal Inspection Service – Boston Division.

    According to court documents, organized criminal elements in China acquired well over $100 million in gift cards through multiple fraudulent means. For example, gift card data is obtained by hacking U.S. companies, tampering with physical gift cards, and targeting U.S. citizens through romance and elder fraud schemes. The criminal elements then send the gift card data to multiple cells of Chinese nationals operating in the United States through a Chinese-based messaging platform in exchange for cryptocurrency.

    Once U.S.-based cells receive the gift card data, they then spend the gift cards to purchase high-value electronics, principally Apple products. After purchasing the Apple products, cell members consolidate the electronics in warehouses for shipment to China, Hong Kong, or countries in Southeast Asia. The cells primarily operate in states with no sales tax, such as New Hampshire, to maximize their profits.

    Wu, Jiang, and Chen were members of one cell in New Hampshire. Wu and Jiang purchased fraudulent gift cards at a discount from their face value. They then either personally used the cards or disseminated them to others, including Chen, to use. Wu was responsible for $1.4 million, Jiang for $3 million, and Chen for $400,000 of fraudulent gift cards.

    Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Concord Police Department led the investigation.  The Merrimack County Attorney’s Office provided valuable assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen prosecuted the case.

    This effort is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Illegal alien sent to federal prison for assaulting law enforcement

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAREDO, Texas – A 27-year-old Mexican national unlawfully residing in Laredo has been sentenced for assaulting and inflicting bodily harm on a Border Patrol (BP) agent, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Guillermo Osto-Navarrete pleaded guilty Feb. 4.

    U.S. District Judge Diana Saldaña has now ordered Osto-Navarrete to serve 24 months in federal prison. Not a U.S. citizen, he is expected to face removal proceedings following his imprisonment. At the hearing, the court noted it was a “miracle” that Osto-Navarette did not get someone seriously injured during the high-speed chase, further commenting about how he fought with law enforcement and later ran from the hospital while handcuffed. In imposing the sentence, Judge Saldaña said he needed to be deterred and should not be in the United States.

    “Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of our communities, and violence against them will earn the strongest possible response from the Southern District of Texas,” said Ganjei. “Additionally, the citizens of Laredo are fortunate that Osto-Navarrete did not kill or seriously injure any innocent bystanders or other drivers during his failed escape from law enforcement. He will now pay for the danger he put the police and community in.”

    On Oct. 14, 2024, Osto-Navarrete picked up several illegal aliens after they exited and ran from the Rio Grande River. Law enforcement attempted to block his vehicle, but he evaded and sped through a residential area without headlights. After running multiple stop signs at an estimated 60 mph, he broadsided a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) unit, causing it to spin 180 degrees.

    Nearby law enforcement quickly apprehended three individuals who had tried to flee.

    A BP agent rushed to assist Osto-Navarrete and check for injuries. As he approached, Osto-Navarrete exited the vehicle and struck him. The agent wrapped his arms around Osto-Navarette to keep him from running away, but he struck the agent’s face and head several times in rapid succession while the agent was standing and after falling to the ground.

    Osto-Navarette fled, but law enforcement quickly located him and took him into custody. After receiving treatment at a local hospital, he escaped again on foot, but authorities soon captured him again.

    Osto-Navarrete admitted he was paid $50 for picking up and transporting the illegal aliens.

    The agent sustained a black eye, bruising to his head and face, scratches to his chin, lacerations on his hands–including a deep cut to one finger–and a scraped knee. The DPS officer driving the unit Osto-Navarrete struck received medical attention for minor injuries.

    Osto-Navarrete has been and will remain in custody pending transfer to a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

    FBI conducted the investigation with the assistance of BP, DPS and Laredo Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Homero Ramirez prosecuted the case.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhood.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Las Vegas Man Sentenced To Over 18 Years In Prison For Child Sexual Exploitation

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas resident was sentenced today by Chief United States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon to 18 years and 4 months in prison to be followed by 15 years of supervised release for sexually exploiting a child in his care, and possessing more than 2,000 files of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) depicting two children in his care and numerous other minors.

    “The defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual exploitation of a young girl within his supervisory control and possessed CSAM depicting two children in his custody,” said United States Attorney Sigal Chattah for the District of Nevada. “The defendant not only traumatized the children who trusted him, but he also possessed child sexual abuse material of additional victims. Let today’s sentencing be a deterrent to others like this defendant.”

    “Exploiting young children and creating child sexual abuse material is among the most heinous crimes investigated by the FBI,” said Special Agent in Charge Spencer L. Evans for the FBI Las Vegas Division. “We remain steadfast in our commitment to seek justice for the victims of such predators. Today’s sentencing exemplifies the unwavering determination of the FBI and our partners to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our community.”

    According to court documents, in December 2020, Daniel Lee Rhees messaged another Kik user that he sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl related to him. During the chats, Rhees stated that he formed a group of taboo parents and uses the Session platform as a place to chat and share CSAM. On December 16, 2020, investigators obtained a search warrant for Rhee’s residence and seized multiple devices belonging to him. During a forensic examination of the devices, investigators recovered CSAM of the six-year-old girl, and another four-year-old girl also related to Rhees. In total, Rhees possessed 1,803 images and 243 videos of child sexual abuse material.

    Rhees pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of children and one count of possession of child pornography. In addition to imprisonment, under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Rhees must register as a sex offender and keep the registration current.

    United States Attorney Sigal Chattah for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Spencer L. Evans for the FBI Las Vegas Division made the announcement.

    The FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Afroza Yeasmin prosecuted the case.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Justice Department to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    Anyone who has information about the physical or online exploitation of children are encouraged to call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or submit a tip online at tips.fbi.gov.

    ###

     

     

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Armed Waterbury Drug Trafficker Pleads Guilty

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Marc H. Silverman, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that JONATHAN SUBH-MARCANO, 28, of Waterbury, pleaded guilty yesterday in New Haven federal court to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, Subh-Marcano was arrested on August 15, 2024, after a court-authorized search of his Waterbury residence revealed approximately 300 individual bags of fentanyl, approximately 30 grams of crack cocaine, a loaded Polymer 80 “ghost gun,” additional rounds of ammunition, and more than $9,000 in cash.

    Subh-Marcano is scheduled to be sentenced on July 1 by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny in Hartford.  He faces a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years and a maximum term of imprisonment of life.

    Subh-Marcano has been detained since his arrest.

    This case has been investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Waterbury Police Department.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Natasha Freismuth through Project Safe Neighborhoods (“PSN”), an evidence-based program proven to be effective at reducing violent crime.  Through PSN, a broad spectrum of stakeholders work together to identify the most pressing violent crime problems in the community and develop comprehensive solutions to address them.  As part of this strategy, PSN focuses enforcement efforts on the most violent offenders and partners with locally based prevention and reentry programs for lasting reductions in crime.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: L.A. Pawn Shop Owner Indicted for Allegedly Conspiring to Sell Stolen Andy Warhol Trial Proof and Lying to the FBI About Its Sale

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LOS ANGELES – The owner of a pawn shop in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles was indicted today for allegedly conspiring to sell a stolen Andy Warhol print trial proof, which was shipped from the Beverly Hills office of an auction house to Dallas, then lying about it to federal agents.

    Glenn Steven Bednarsh, 58, of Farmington, Michigan and formerly of Beverly Hills, is charged in a two-count federal grand jury indictment with conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen goods.

    He is expected to be arraigned in the coming weeks in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles.

    According to the indictment, in February 2021, Bednarsh knowingly purchased for $6,000 a stolen Warhol trial proof depicting Russian revolutionary and Soviet Union leader Vladimir Lenin, which is worth an estimated $175,000. Bednarsh allegedly asked a co-conspirator, Brian Alec Light, 58, of Hudson, Ohio, and formerly a resident of downtown Los Angeles, to help him sell the stolen Warhol Lenin trial proof. Light then contacted the Beverly Hills of an auction house based in Dallas about selling the Warhol trial proof. 

    In March 2021, Bednarsh transported the trial proof to the Beverly Hills office of the auction house, which then shipped it to Dallas. Light e-signed an auction house consignment agreement and called the auction house to state he had dropped off the trial proof and to ask about receiving a cash advance for it.

    An employee of the auction house in Dallas reached out to the gallery in West Hollywood for its opinion of the piece, according to court documents. The gallery immediately recognized the piece as stolen, then notified the auction house and the FBI.

    Later in March 2021, when FBI agents began inquiring about the stolen Warhol trial proof, Light lied to them by saying he bought it at a Culver City garage sale for $18,000 and provided a fake receipt.

    In August and September of 2021, Bednarsh lied to FBI agents by telling them Light asked him to store the Warhol Lenin trial proof for him and that he agreed to do so out of friendship and not for financial gain. 

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

    Light pleaded guilty in November 2024 to one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods. His sentencing is currently set for May 27, and he faces up to 10 years in federal prison.

    The FBI’s Art Crime Team is investigating this matter.

    Assistant United States Attorneys Erik M. Silber of the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section and Matthew W. O’Brien of the Environmental Crime and Consumer Protection Section are prosecuting this case.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Cartel cocaine conspirator sentenced to 10 years in federal prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAREDO, Texas – A Cartel del Noreste (CDN) operative has been ordered to federal prison for her role in a conspiracy to deliver over 10 kilograms of cocaine, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Rebeca Guzman-Rios, 39, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, pleaded guilty Aug. 30, 2024.

    U.S. District Judge Diana Saldana has now sentenced Guzman-Rios to 120 months in federal prison. Also sentenced was Rogelio Garcia-Ayala, 65, who illegally resided in Laredo, and received 60 months. Not U.S. citizens, both are expected to face removal proceedings after completing their sentences.

    In April 2024, a CDN sicario aka hitman dispatched Guzman-Rios to Laredo to facilitate the sale of 10 kilograms of cocaine. She crossed into Laredo at the Gateway to the Americas International Bridge from Mexico and proceeded to downtown Laredo where Ana Maria Escobedo picked her up and drove her to the location of the drug transaction.

    Meanwhile, Cesar Gerardo Rodriguez Salazar and Brenda Odet Nery Castro retrieved the cocaine from their residence, which was being used as a CDN stash house, and provided it to Francisco Herrera-Moresco. Garcia-Ayala drove Herrera-Moresco and the drugs to the parking lot where Guzman-Rios and Escobedo were waiting.

    Salazar and Castro followed to observe.

    Herrera-Moresco was supposed to deliver the cocaine to the buyer Guzman-Rios had arranged, but believed the transaction had fallen through and left the area instead with Escobedo and the cocaine.  

    Law enforcement attempted to conduct a traffic stop, but Escobedo began to evade and led them on a pursuit, during which time the cocaine was thrown from the vehicle. After hitting a fence, the pair finally came to a stop and tried to flee, but authorities took them into custody as well as Salazar and Castro. They also arrested Guzman-Rios, who remained at the location of the drug transaction. Law enforcement was also able to retrieve the cocaine.

    “If you work with, work for, or assist CDN, or any other cartel, you will be arrested and prosecuted to full extent of the law, without exception,” said Ganjei. “The cartels are not welcome in Texas.”

    Mexican citizens Salazar, 42, Herrera-Moresco, 42, and Castro 37, were all previously sentenced to 87, 50 and 30 months, respectively, while Escobedo, 33, Laredo, was ordered to serve a 65-month-term of imprisonment.  

    All remain in custody.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration conducted the investigation with the assistance of Customs and Border Protection and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant U.S. Attorney Manuel Cardenas is prosecuting the case. 

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhood.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: West Haven Man Who Made and Trafficked Narcotic Pills Sentenced to More Than 11 Years in Prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Marc H. Silverman, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that WILLIS TAYLOR, 68, of West Haven, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams in Hartford to 138 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, for operating a drug trafficking ring involving fentanyl and methamphetamine pills disguised as legitimate prescription medication, as well as other controlled substances.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, this matter stems from an investigation by the DEA New Haven’s Tactical Diversion Squad and the FBI’s New Haven Safe Streets/Gang Task Force targeting the manufacture and distribution of thousands of counterfeit oxycodone tablets containing fentanyl and counterfeit Adderall tablets containing methamphetamine, and the distribution of heroin and cocaine, in the New Haven area.  The investigation revealed that Taylor coordinated the manufacture and distribution of the counterfeit narcotic pills. Taylor obtained drugs from others, including gang members, and sold them, or pressed them into pills at locations in New Haven, Branford, and Shelton, before selling them.  Taylor also arranged counterfeit pill transactions between second and third parties, sometimes being supplied by a co-conspirator.

    On October 20, 2022, Taylor was arrested on related state charges when, after having been directed by his girlfriend to clear drugs out of her home, he was stopped in a car and found in possession of more than three kilograms of various narcotics.  A subsequent search of his residence revealed additional quantities of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.

    The investigation also revealed that an individual overdosed and died at Taylor’s West Haven residence on May 7, 2022.

    During the investigation, investigators seized from Taylor and his co-conspirators more than two kilograms of fentanyl, including thousands of counterfeit Oxycodone tablets; approximately two kilograms of methamphetamine, including thousands of counterfeit Adderall pills; three kilograms of cocaine and other drugs; four pill-press machines; one industrial mixer; five firearms; and more than $200,000 in cash.

    Fourteen individuals were charged as a result of this investigation.

    Taylor has been detained since his federal arrest on March 28, 2023.  On September 4, 2024, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 400 grams or more of fentanyl, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, 100 grams or more of heroin, and 500 grams or more of cocaine.

    This matter has been investigated by the DEA New Haven’s Tactical Diversion Squad, the FBI’s New Haven Safe Streets/Gang Task Force, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Marshals Service, with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police, and the East Haven, West Haven, and Hamden Police Departments.  The DEA Tactical Diversion Squad is composed of personnel from the DEA, the Connecticut State Police, and the West Haven, Hamden, Manchester, Bristol, Fairfield, and Seymour Police Departments.  The FBI Task Force includes participants 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. Attorneys John T. Pierpont, Jr., Konstantin Lantsman, and Katherine Boyles through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program.  OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations through a prosecutor-led and intelligence-driven approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Canada: New centre reduces barriers to mental-health, substance-use care

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    More people now have access to timely, streamlined care for urgent mental-health and substance-use concerns at the new Urgent Care Response Centre North at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster.

    “This centre is another step forward in our commitment to reducing barriers to mental-health and substance-use care,” said Josie Osborne, Minister of Health. “By providing people with timely access to assessment and care, all in one location, people experiencing mental-health and substance-use challenges will be able to get connected to the supports they need to put them on a path to healing faster.”

    The centre is located in the Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian Hospital and is a primary point of contact for people who need urgent care but do not require hospitalization. Assessments can be done in person or virtually, providing flexibility and increased accessibility. Patients will be provided with crisis support and connections to community-based services and substance-use treatment.

    “Our urgent care response centre team is helping people facing mental-health or substance-use challenges feel supported,” said Rana Yonadim, manager, clinical operations and program services, Urgent Care Response Centre North. “We’re making it easier for individuals in our community by being here to connect them with the timely, appropriate care they need.”

    This is the second centre of its kind in the Fraser Health region. The first, at Surrey Memorial Hospital, was opened in 2019. In the first nine months after opening, 1,550 emergency room visits and 329 hospital admissions were redirected to the Surrey centre, helping more people access the right care.

    In 2024, the centre in Surrey made 7,397 referrals to appropriate in-hospital and community-based services, such as psychiatric consultations, counselling, crisis stabilization and substance-use services, to support people’s ongoing health needs.

    The centre’s welcoming environment provides rapid access to care, often through same-day appointments, with a dedicated team of psychiatrists, counsellors, nurses and other care professionals, as well as additional services that support people’s health and well-being.

    People can access the centre through self-referral by calling 604 520-4253 or by walking in directly, seven days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m., including statutory holidays. Community doctors, police and other first responders can also refer clients. After an initial assessment, staff engage with clients to identify their needs and create a personalized care plan.

    The Urgent Care Response Centre North’s location in the Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre places it near substance-use services on the hospital campus, such as the Rapid Access to Addiction Care Clinic, opioid agonist treatment, Adult Day, Evening and Weekend Treatment Program, and the emergency department.

    Quotes:

    Jennifer Whiteside, MLA for New Westminster-Coquitlam –

    “The centre immediately addresses the critical need for barrier-free mental-health and substance-use support for people in North Fraser communities. This will increase the availability of treatment options to support people seeking immediate medical care and promote healthier communities for everyone.” 

    Amna Shah, parliamentary secretary for mental health and addictions –

    “We’re keeping our promise to strengthen mental-health and substance-use services throughout B.C. so people can access the care they need, when they need it. The new Urgent Care Response Centre North connects people in New Westminster and surrounding areas with medical professionals as well as vital community-based services.”

    Dr. Anson Koo, program director and regional department head for psychiatry and mental health, Fraser Health –

    “The centre connects individuals facing urgent mental-health and substance-use challenges to integrated, timely and compassionate care within the hospital and in the community. It builds on the success of the first mental health and substance use urgent care response centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital, which opened in 2019, and uses this model of care to help more people on their path to healing and recovery.”

    Learn More:

    For more information about mental-health and substance-use supports in B.C., visit: https://helpstartshere.gov.bc.ca/

    To learn how B.C. is building better mental-health and addictions care, visit: https://gov.bc.ca/BetterCare

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell Holds Roundtable to Address Rising Cost of Child Care with Parents, Providers

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) toured Tutor Time in Canton, and held a roundtable with child care providers and parents to discuss the impact of the rising cost of care on Michigan families.

    “Caregiving is the foundation of our economy – it allows for all other work to be possible. No one can do their job if their children aren’t cared for. But quality, affordable child care remains an expense that many American families cannot afford,” Dingell said. “It’s time to make investing in our country’s care infrastructure and workforce a priority to bring down costs and expand access to care. Today, we spoke to both parents and providers about the challenges they face finding and providing care, and what Congress can do to solve these problems.”

    “We were honored to host U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell at our Tutor Time location in Canton, MI, to discuss our commitment to helping families access quality and affordable childcare,” said Joanna Cline, Learning Care Group Executive and Michigan District 6 Constituent. “Partnering with Government leaders who advocate for family-focused policies is an important part of the work we do to support our communities, and I was proud to speak with Rep. Dingell about this issue today.”

    According to Bridge Michigan, the child care crisis costs Michigan $2.9 billion annually in turnover and lost taxes. 

    The cost of childcare has risen more than 30% in the last six years. In more than half of the states in America, the average annual cost of full-time child care is more than the average annual cost of in-state college tuition.

    The Department of Health and Human Services reported that a $52.5 billion investment in child care during the COVID-19 pandemic:

    1. provided stabilization grants to 220,000 providers associated with up to 10 million children;
    2. lowered child care costs for more than 700,000 children;
    3. increased compensation for more than 650,000 child care workers; and
    4. created 300,000 new child care slots. 

    View photos from the event here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Celebrating Earth Day: Governor Polis Signs Executive Order Protecting Colorado’s Environment and Fostering Sustainability and Efficiency in State Government

    Source: US State of Colorado

    AURORA – Today, Governor Polis signed an Executive Order creating a more sustainable future by advancing state sustainability goals and greening government practices in Colorado. 

    “In Colorado, we are proud of our national leadership on developing clean energy that saves Coloradans money and protects our environment. With this Executive Order, we’re making good on this commitment by raising the bar for state government to lead by example and contribute to this important work. This builds on our plans by setting goals for our state government to cut emissions by half, use energy and water more efficiently, increase the number of electric vehicles in the state fleet, and save taxpayer money by reducing energy costs to our state. Efficient government practices save taxpayers money and are one piece of the puzzle in protecting our state for future generations while cutting costs,” said Governor Polis. 

    The Polis Administration has led the charge in combating climate change by investing in clean energy technology, decreasing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels by harnessing the power of alternative energy sources, and protecting Colorado’s natural resources and public lands for future generations. 

    Today’s Executive Order, outlines the state’s priorities in fostering a greener, more efficient government by: 

    • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% in State Operations by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 32% in the State Fleet by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing energy use per square foot in State Facilities by at least 20% by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing potable water consumption across Agencies by at least 20% by FY 2034 over the FY 2015 baseline. 

    This Executive Order also issues a number of directives to state agencies to take concrete steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions by assessing and improving energy and water usage in government facilities, and electrifying state fleet vehicles and lawn maintenance equipment. These actions will reduce waste, lower emissions, and use state resources more efficiently. This Executive Order builds upon previous Executive Orders signed by Governor Polis, focused on continuing efforts to reduce air pollutants, strengthening the Office of Sustainability and creating clear plans for water conservation strategies within the state. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer And Two Conspirators Sentenced To Federal Prison For Trafficking Firearms

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

    Orlando, Florida – U.S. District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza has sentenced three individuals for their roles in a gun trafficking conspiracy. Matthew L. Stephen Easton (35, Melrose) was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in federal prison for firearms trafficking. Ernesto Vazquez (23, Kissimmee) and Derick Yamir Perez Diaz (22, Orlando) were each sentenced to 11 years in federal prison for conspiracy to traffic firearms. All three previously pleaded guilty.

    According to the plea agreements, Easton, a federally licensed firearms dealer, supplied Perez Diaz with large quantities of firearms, despite knowing that Perez Diaz was dealing in firearms without a license. Perez Diaz, in turn, trafficked those firearms to Vazquez who resold them to an individual who smuggled them out of the country. Between October and December 2023, more than 100 Glock pistols and AK-47 rifles were trafficked, including those pictured below:

    Additionally, Vazquez and Perez Diaz admitted to trafficking machinegun conversion devices:

    On April 18, 2024, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives executed a search warrant at Vazquez’s residence. Inside, they found multiple firearms, stockpiles of ammunition, and grenades:

    This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and Homeland Security Investigations. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Noah P. Dorman and Dana E. Hill.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: First Busey Corporation Announces 2025 First Quarter Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LEAWOOD, Kan., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) reports first quarter results.

    Busey completed the transformative acquisition of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. on March 1, 2025, significantly impacting first quarter results and resetting the baseline for financial performance for future quarters in a multitude of positive ways.

    Net Income (Loss) Diluted EPS Net Interest Margin1 ROAA1 ROATCE1
    $(30.0) million $(0.44) 3.16% (0.82)% (7.99)%
    $39.9 million (adj)2 $0.57 (adj)2 3.08% (adj)2 1.09% (adj)2 10.64% (adj)2
    MESSAGE FROM OUR CHAIRMAN & CEO

    The transformative partnership between Busey and CrossFirst takes our organization to new heights, combining our growing commercial bank with the power of Busey’s core deposit franchise, wealth management platform, and payment technology solutions at FirsTech, Inc. As we build upon Busey’s forward momentum, we are grateful for the opportunities to consistently earn the business of our customers, based on the contributions of our talented associates and the continued support of our loyal shareholders.

    Van A. Dukeman 
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 


    PARTNERSHIP WITH CROSSFIRST

    Effective March 1, 2025, First Busey Corporation (“Busey,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), the holding company for Busey Bank, completed its previously announced acquisition (the “Merger”) of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. (“CrossFirst”) (NASDAQ: CFB), the holding company for CrossFirst Bank, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 26, 2024, by and between Busey and CrossFirst (the “Merger Agreement”). This partnership creates a premier commercial bank in the Midwest, Southwest, and Florida, with 78 full-service locations across 10 states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The combined holding company will continue to operate under the First Busey Corporation name. Busey common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq under the “BUSE” stock ticker symbol.

    Upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst common stock converted to the right to receive 0.6675 of a share of Busey’s common stock, with the result that holders of Busey’s common stock owned approximately 63.5% of the combined company and holders of CrossFirst’s common stock owned approximately 36.5% of the combined company, on a fully-diluted basis. Further, upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst preferred stock converted to the right to receive one share of Busey preferred stock.

    CrossFirst Bank’s results of operations were included in Busey’s consolidated results of operations beginning March 1, 2025. Busey will operate CrossFirst Bank as a separate banking subsidiary until it is merged with and into Busey Bank, which is expected to occur on June 20, 2025. At the time of the bank merger, CrossFirst Bank locations will become banking centers of Busey Bank.

    The acquisition was accretive to tangible book value, exceeding initial projections of a six-month earn back period.

    Further details are included with Busey’s Current Report on Form 8‑K announcing completion of the acquisition, which was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 3, 2025.

    FINANCIAL RESULTS

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (unaudited)
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Provision for credit losses     42,452       1,273       5,038  
    Total noninterest income     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Total noninterest expense     115,171       78,167       70,769  
    Income (loss) before income taxes     (32,669 )     37,359       34,960  
    Income taxes     (2,679 )     9,254       8,735  
    Net income (loss)   $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
                 
    Basic earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.47  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
    Effective income tax rate     8.20 %     24.77 %     24.99 %
     

    Busey’s results of operations for the first quarter of 2025 was a net loss of $(30.0) million, or $(0.44) per diluted common share, compared to net income of $28.1 million, or $0.49 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $26.2 million, or $0.46 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized return on average assets and annualized return on average tangible common equity2 were (0.82)% and (7.99)%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Busey views certain non-operating items, including acquisition-related expenses, restructuring charges, and one-time strategic events, as adjustments to net income reported under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). We also adjust for net securities gains and losses to align with industry and research analyst reporting. The objective of our presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings metrics is to allow investors and analysts to more clearly identify quarterly trends in core earnings performance. Non-operating pre-tax adjustments for acquisition and restructuring expenses2 in the first quarter of 2025 were $26.0 million. Further, $3.1 million other noninterest expense was recorded to establish an initial allowance for Unfunded Commitments2 and $42.4 million provision expense was recorded to establish an initial Allowance for Credit Losses for loans purchased without credit deterioration (“non-PCD” loans) immediately following the close of the acquisition in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 326-20-30-15. Additionally, net securities losses were $15.8 million, primarily related to the execution of a strategic balance sheet repositioning. Lastly, $4.6 million in one-time deferred tax valuation expense2 was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, which is expected to lower our effective blended state tax rate in future periods but created a negative adjustment to the carrying value of our deferred tax asset in the current period. For more information and a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures (which are identified with the endnote labeled as 2) in tabular form, see Non-GAAP Financial Information.”

    Adjusted net income2, which excludes the impact of non-GAAP adjustments, was $39.9 million, or $0.57 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $30.9 million, or $0.53 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $25.7 million or $0.46 per diluted common share for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized adjusted return on average assets2 and annualized adjusted return on average tangible common equity2 were 1.09% and 10.64%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Pre-Provision Net Revenue2

    Pre-provision net revenue2 was $25.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $38.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $46.4 million for the first quarter of 2024. Pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 0.70% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.28% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 1.55% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue2 was $54.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $42.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $38.6 million for the first quarter of 2024. Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 1.50% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.38% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 1.29% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin2

    Net interest income was $103.7 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $81.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $75.9 million in the first quarter of 2024.

    Net interest margin2 was 3.16% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.95% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.79% for the first quarter of 2024. Excluding purchase accounting accretion, adjusted net interest margin2 was 3.08% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.92% in the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.78% in the first quarter of 2024.

    Components of the 21 basis point increase in net interest margin2 during the first quarter of 2025, which includes approximately +12 basis points contributed by CrossFirst Bank, are as follows:

    • Increased loan portfolio and held for sale loan yields contributed +36 basis points
    • Increased purchase accounting accretion contributed +5 basis points
    • Decreased borrowing expense contributed +3 basis points
    • Decreased expense on rate swaps contributed +2 basis points
    • Increased non-maturity deposit funding costs contributed -17 basis points
    • Decreased cash and securities portfolio yield contributed -8 basis points

    Based on our most recent Asset Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) model, a +100 basis point parallel rate shock is expected to increase net interest income by 1.8% over the subsequent twelve-month period. Busey continues to evaluate and execute off-balance sheet hedging and balance sheet repositioning strategies as well as embedding rate protection in our asset originations to provide stabilization to net interest income in lower rate environments. Time deposit and savings specials have provided funding flows, and we had excess earning cash during the first quarter of 2025. A portion of the acquired CrossFirst Bank securities portfolio was liquidated when the acquisition was finalized, providing additional excess cash that will allow us to unwind non-core funding. As brokered CDs mature, Busey will continue to deploy excess cash to reduce wholesale funding levels during subsequent quarters. Total deposit cost of funds increased from 1.75% during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 1.91% during the first quarter of 2025. Deposit betas increased with the higher mix of acquired indexed and wholesale deposits and a full quarter of the consolidated Company’s funding base is projected to increase total deposit cost of funds during the second quarter of 2025. With the expectation of Busey paying down non-core funding, the deposit beta will lessen during the year and is expected to normalize in the 45% to 50% beta range. Growth in higher yielding earning assets is expected to offset the increased cost of funds pressure and we project further net interest margin expansion during the second quarter of 2025.

    Noninterest Income

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST INCOME          
    Wealth management fees $ 17,364     $ 16,786     $ 15,549  
    Fees for customer services   8,128       7,911       7,056  
    Payment technology solutions   5,073       5,094       5,709  
    Mortgage revenue   329       496       746  
    Income on bank owned life insurance   1,446       1,080       1,419  
    Realized net gains (losses) on the sale of mortgage servicing rights               7,465  
    Net securities gains (losses)   (15,768 )     (196 )     (6,375 )
    Other noninterest income   4,651       4,050       3,344  
    Total noninterest income $ 21,223     $ 35,221     $ 34,913  
       

    Total noninterest income decreased by 39.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and decreased by 39.2% compared to the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to net securities losses that were recorded in connection with a strategic balance sheet repositioning.

    Excluding the impact of net securities gains and losses and the gains on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 4.4% to $37.0 million, or 26.3% of operating revenue2, during the first quarter of 2025, compared to $35.4 million, or 30.3% of operating revenue2, for the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 9.4% from $33.8 million, or 30.8% of operating revenue2.

    Our fee-based businesses continue to add revenue diversification. Wealth management fees, wealth management referral fees included in other noninterest income, and payment technology solutions contributed 61.1% of adjusted noninterest income2 for the first quarter of 2025.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest income are as follows:

    • Wealth management fees increased by 3.4% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024 wealth management fees increased by 11.7%. Busey’s Wealth Management division ended the first quarter of 2025 with $13.68 billion in assets under care, compared to $13.83 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 and $12.76 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2024. Our portfolio management team continues to focus on long-term returns and managing risk in the face of volatile markets and has outperformed its blended benchmark3 over the last three and five years. The Wealth Management segment reported another quarter of record high revenue for the first quarter of 2025.
    • Payment technology solutions revenue decreased slightly compared the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, payment technology solutions revenue decreased by 11.1% primarily due to decreases in income from electronic, online, and interactive voice response payments, partially offset by increases in lockbox and merchant services income.
    • Fees for customer services increased by 2.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 primarily due to increases in income from analysis charges and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, fees for customer services increased by 15.2% primarily due to increases in analysis charges, automated teller machine fees, and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Increases in fees for customer services are primarily attributable to the inclusion of one month of CrossFirst’s income in our first quarter results.
    • Other noninterest income increased by 14.8% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and by 39.1% compared to the first quarter of 2024. The increase for both periods was driven by increases in swap origination fee income, commercial loan sales gains, letter of credit fee income, and other real estate owned income, offset by decreases in venture capital income.

    Operating Efficiency

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST EXPENSE          
    Salaries, wages, and employee benefits $ 67,563   $ 45,458   $ 42,090
    Data processing expense   9,575     6,564     6,550
    Net occupancy expense of premises   5,799     4,794     4,720
    Furniture and equipment expense   1,744     1,650     1,813
    Professional fees   9,511     4,938     2,253
    Amortization of intangible assets   3,083     2,471     2,409
    Interchange expense   1,343     1,305     1,611
    FDIC insurance   2,167     1,330     1,400
    Other noninterest expense   14,386     9,657     7,923
    Total noninterest expense $ 115,171   $ 78,167   $ 70,769
     

    Total noninterest expense increased by 47.3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and increased by 62.7% compared to the first quarter of 2024. Growth in noninterest expense was primarily attributable to one-time acquisition expenses related to the CrossFirst acquisition as well as added costs for operating expenses for two banks during one month of the quarter. Annual pre-tax expense synergy estimates resulting from the CrossFirst acquisition remain on track at $25.0 million. Busey anticipates a 50% rate of synergy realization in 2025 and 100% in 2026.

    Adjusted noninterest expense2, which excludes acquisition and restructuring expenses, amortization of intangible assets, and the provision for unfunded commitments, was $82.9 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $72.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $68.6 million in the first quarter of 2024. As our business grows, Busey remains focused on prudently managing our expense base and operating efficiency.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest expense are as follows:

    • Salaries, wages, and employee benefits expenses increased by $22.1 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $25.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $15.6 million and $15.8 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses, with additional severance, retention, and stock-based compensation. Busey has added 501 full time equivalent associates (“FTEs”) over the past year, mostly as a result of acquisitions, including 437 CrossFirst Bank FTEs added in March 2025 and 46 Merchants & Manufacturers Bank FTEs added in April 2024.
    • Data processing expense increased by $3.0 million compared to both the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2024, of which $2.3 million and $2.2 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Busey has continued to make investments in technology enhancements and has also experienced inflation-driven price increases.
    • Professional fees increased by $4.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, of which $4.3 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, professional fees increased by $7.3 million, of which $7.2 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses.
    • Amortization of intangible assets increased by $0.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $0.7 million compared to the first quarter of 2024. The CrossFirst acquisition added an estimated $81.8 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which will be amortized using an accelerated amortization methodology.
    • Other noninterest expense increased by $4.7 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and increased by $6.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $0.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively, resulted from increases in non-operating expenses related to acquisition and restructuring expenses. Further, $3.1 million of non-operating expenses was recorded for the Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments. Multiple expense items contributed to the remaining fluctuations in this expense category, including marketing, business development, regulatory expenses, mortgage servicing rights valuation expenses, and other real estate owned.

    Busey’s efficiency ratio2 was 79.3% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 64.5% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 58.1% for the first quarter of 2024. Our adjusted efficiency2 ratio was 58.7% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 61.8% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 62.3% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Busey’s annualized ratio of adjusted noninterest expense to average assets was 2.27% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.39% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.30% for the first quarter of 2024.

    BALANCE SHEET STRENGTH

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,200,292     $ 697,659     $ 591,071  
    Debt securities available for sale   2,273,874       1,810,221       1,898,072  
    Debt securities held to maturity   815,402       826,630       862,218  
    Equity securities   10,828       15,862       9,790  
    Loans held for sale   7,270       3,657       6,827  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Allowance for credit losses   (195,210 )     (83,404 )     (91,562 )
    Restricted bank stock   53,518       49,930       6,000  
    Premises and equipment, net   182,003       118,820       121,506  
    Right of use assets   40,594       10,608       10,590  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net   496,118       365,975       351,455  
    Other assets   711,206       533,677       533,414  
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Liabilities          
    Total deposits $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   137,340       155,610       147,175  
    Short-term borrowings   11,209              
    Long-term debt   306,509       227,723       223,100  
    Junior subordinated debt owed to unconsolidated trusts   77,117       74,815       72,040  
    Lease liabilities   41,111       11,040       10,896  
    Other liabilities   251,890       211,775       191,405  
    Total liabilities   17,284,646       10,663,453       10,604,807  
               
    Stockholders’ equity          
    Retained earnings   249,484       294,054       248,412  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)   (172,810 )     (207,039 )     (222,190 )
    Other stockholders’ equity1   2,102,932       1,296,254       1,256,429  
    Total stockholders’ equity   2,179,606       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS          
    Book value per common share2 $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share2 $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  
    Ending number of common shares outstanding   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  

    ___________________________________________
    1. Net balance of preferred stock ($0.001 par value), common stock ($0.001 par value), additional paid-in capital, and treasury stock.
    2. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    AVERAGE BALANCES (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 861,021   $ 776,572   $ 594,193
    Investment securities   2,782,435     2,597,309     2,907,144
    Loans held for sale   3,443     6,306     4,833
    Portfolio loans   9,838,337     7,738,772     7,599,316
    Interest-earning assets   13,363,594     11,048,350     11,005,903
    Total assets   14,831,298     12,085,993     12,024,208
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   3,036,127     2,724,344     2,708,586
    Interest-bearing deposits   9,142,781     7,325,662     7,330,105
    Total deposits   12,178,908     10,050,006     10,038,691
    Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase   144,838     135,728     178,659
    Interest-bearing liabilities   9,627,841     7,763,729     7,831,655
    Total liabilities   12,896,222     10,689,054     10,748,484
    Stockholders’ equity – preferred   2,669        
    Stockholders’ equity – common   1,932,407     1,396,939     1,275,724
    Tangible common equity1   1,521,387     1,029,539     922,710

    ___________________________________________
    1. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    Busey’s financial strength is built on a long-term conservative operating approach. That focus will not change now or in the future.

    Total assets were $19.46 billion as of March 31, 2025, compared to $12.05 billion as of December 31, 2024, and $11.89 billion as of March 31, 2024. Average interest-earning assets were $13.36 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $11.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $11.01 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Portfolio Loans

    We remain steadfast in our conservative approach to underwriting and our disciplined approach to pricing, particularly given our outlook for the economy in the coming quarters. Portfolio loans totaled $13.87 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $7.70 billion at December 31, 2024, and $7.59 billion at March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s portfolio loans grew by $133.6 million during the first quarter of 2025, with growth centered in the commercial category. In addition, as of March 31, 2024, CrossFirst Bank added $6.04 billion in loans to Busey’s loan portfolio.

    Average portfolio loans were $9.84 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $7.74 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $7.60 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Asset Quality

    Asset quality continues to be strong. Busey Bank maintains a well-diversified loan portfolio and, as a matter of policy and practice, limits concentration exposure in any particular loan segment. CrossFirst Bank’s policies are similar in nature to Busey Bank’s policies and Busey is in the process of migrating the legacy CrossFirst portfolio toward Busey Bank’s policies.

    ASSET QUALITY (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Loans 30 – 89 days past due   18,554       8,124       7,441  
    Non-performing loans:          
    Non-accrual loans   48,647       22,088       17,465  
    Loans 90+ days past due and still accruing   6,077       1,149       88  
    Non-performing loans   54,724       23,237       17,553  
    Other non-performing assets   4,757       63       65  
    Non-performing assets   59,481       23,300       17,618  
    Substandard (excludes 90+ days past due)   131,078       62,023       87,830  
    Classified assets $ 190,559     $ 85,323     $ 105,448  
               
    Allowance for credit losses $ 195,210     $ 83,404     $ 91,562  
               
    RATIOS          
    Non-performing loans to portfolio loans   0.39 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Non-performing assets to total assets   0.31 %     0.19 %     0.15 %
    Non-performing assets to portfolio loans and other non-performing assets   0.43 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Allowance for credit losses to portfolio loans   1.41 %     1.08 %     1.21 %
    Coverage ratio of the allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans 3.57 x   3.59 x   5.22 x
    Classified assets to Bank Tier 1 capital1and reserves   8.40 %     5.61 %     7.24 %

    ___________________________________________
    1. Capital amounts for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    Loans 30-89 days past due increased by $10.4 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $11.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $6.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $12.5 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Non-performing loans increased by $31.5 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $37.2 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing loans were $6.8 million, a decrease of $16.4 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing loans were $47.9 million as of March 31, 2025. Continued disciplined credit management resulted in non-performing loans as a percentage of portfolio loans of 0.39% as of March 31, 2025, a 9 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Non-performing assets increased by $36.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $41.9 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing assets were $7.1 million, a decrease of $16.2 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing assets were $52.4 million as of March 31, 2025. Non-performing assets represented 0.31% of total assets as of March 31, 2025, a 12 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Classified assets increased by $105.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $85.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s classified assets were $81.3 million, a decrease of $4.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s classified assets were $109.3 million as of March 31, 2025.

    The allowance for credit losses was $195.2 million as of March 31, 2025, representing 1.41% of total portfolio loans outstanding, and providing coverage of 3.57 times our non-performing loans balance. In connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, the Day 1 allowance recorded for loans that were purchased with credit deterioration (“PCD” loans) was $100.8 million. The Day 1 PCD allowance was recorded as an adjustment to the fair value of the PCD loans.

    NET CHARGE-OFFS (RECOVERIES) AND PROVISION EXPENSE (RELEASE) (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net charge-offs (recoveries) $ 31,429   $ 2,850   $ 5,216
    Provision expense (release)   42,452     1,273     5,038
                     

    Net charge-offs increased by $28.6 million when compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $26.2 million when compared with the first quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs include $29.6 million related to PCD loans acquired from CrossFirst Bank, which were fully reserved at acquisition and did not require recording additional provision expense.

    Busey’s results for the first quarter of 2025 include $42.5 million provision expense for credit losses, which includes $42.4 million that was recorded to establish an initial allowance for credit losses on non-PCD acquired loans.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $16.46 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $9.98 billion at December 31, 2024, and $9.96 billion at March 31, 2024. Average deposits were $12.18 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $10.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $10.04 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Core deposits2 accounted for 89.7% of total deposits as of March 31, 2025. The quality of our core deposit franchise is a critical value driver of our institution. We estimated that 32% of our deposits were uninsured and uncollateralized4 as of March 31, 2025, and we have sufficient on- and off-balance sheet liquidity to manage deposit fluctuations and the liquidity needs of our customers.

    We have executed various deposit campaigns to attract term funding and savings accounts at a lower rate than our marginal cost of funds. New certificate of deposit production in the first quarter of 2025 had a weighted average term of 7.8 months at a rate of 3.58%, which was 96 basis points below our average marginal wholesale equivalent-term funding cost during the quarter.

    Borrowings

    As of March 31, 2025, Busey Bank held $16.7 million of long-term Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) borrowings. In comparison, Busey Bank had no short-term or long-term FHLB borrowings as of December 31, 2024, or March 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, CrossFirst Bank held $11.2 million of short-term FHLB borrowings and $61.9 million of long-term FHLB borrowings.

    In addition, associated with the CrossFirst acquisition, Busey assumed trust preferred securities with a recorded balance of $2.2 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Liquidity

    As of March 31, 2025, our available sources of on- and off-balance sheet liquidity5 totaled $8.55 billion. Furthermore, our balance sheet liquidity profile continues to be aided by the cash flows we expect from our relatively short-duration securities portfolio. Those cash flows were approximately $119.7 million in the first quarter of 2025. Cash flows from maturing securities within our portfolio are expected to be approximately $302.3 million for the remainder of 2025, with a current book yield of 2.55%, and approximately $308.1 million for 2026, with a current book yield of 2.59%.

    Capital Strength

    The strength of our balance sheet is also reflected in our capital foundation. Although impacted by the strategic deployment of capital for the CrossFirst acquisition, our capital ratios remain strong, and as of March 31, 2025, our regulatory capital ratios continued to provide a buffer of more than $630 million above levels required to be designated well-capitalized. Busey’s Common Equity Tier 1 ratio is estimated6 to be 11.99% at March 31, 2025, compared to 14.10% at December 31, 2024, and 13.45% at March 31, 2024. Our Total Capital to Risk Weighted Assets ratio is estimated6 to be 14.87% at March 31, 2025, compared to 18.53% at December 31, 2024, and 17.95% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible common equity2 was $1.68 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $1.02 billion at December 31, 2024, and $931.2 million at March 31, 2024. Tangible common equity2 represented 8.83% of tangible assets at March 31, 2025, compared to 8.71% at December 31, 2024, and 8.07% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible book value per common share2 was $18.62 at March 31, 2025, compared to $17.88 at December 31, 2024, and $16.84 at March 31, 2024, reflecting a 10.6% year-over-year increase. The ratios of tangible common equity to tangible assets2 and tangible book value per common share have been impacted by the fair market valuation adjustment of Busey’s securities portfolio as a result of the current rate environment, which is reflected in the accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) component of shareholder’s equity.

    Busey’s strong capital levels, coupled with its earnings, have allowed the Company to provide a steady return to its stockholders through dividends. During the first quarter of 2025, we paid a dividend of $0.25 per share on Busey’s common stock, which represents a 4.2% increase from the previous quarterly dividend of $0.24 per share. Busey has consistently paid dividends to its common stockholders since the bank holding company was organized in 1980.

    During the first quarter of 2025, Busey resumed making stock repurchases under its stock repurchase plan, purchasing 220,000 shares of its common stock at a weighted average price of $21.98 per share for a total of $4.8 million. As of March 31, 2025, Busey had 1,699,275 shares remaining on its stock repurchase plan available for repurchase.

    FIRST QUARTER EARNINGS INVESTOR PRESENTATION

    For additional information on Busey’s financial condition and operating results, please refer to our Q1 2025 Earnings Investor Presentation furnished via Form 8‑K on April 22, 2025, in connection with this earnings release.

    CORPORATE PROFILE

    As of March 31, 2025, First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) was a $19.46 billion financial holding company headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.

    Busey Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Champaign, Illinois, had total assets of $11.98 billion as of March 31, 2025. Busey Bank currently has 62 banking centers, with 21 in Central Illinois markets, 17 in suburban Chicago markets, 20 in the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area, three in Southwest Florida, and one in Indianapolis. More information about Busey Bank can be found at busey.com.

    CrossFirst Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Leawood, Kansas, had total assets of $7.45 billion as of March 31, 2025. CrossFirst Bank currently has 16 banking centers located across Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. More information about CrossFirst Bank can be found at crossfirstbank.com. It is anticipated that CrossFirst Bank will be merged with and into Busey Bank on June 20, 2025.

    Through Busey’s Wealth Management division, the Company provides a full range of asset management, investment, brokerage, fiduciary, philanthropic advisory, tax preparation, and farm management services to individuals, businesses, and foundations. Assets under care totaled $13.68 billion as of March 31, 2025. More information about Busey’s Wealth Management services can be found at busey.com/wealth-management.

    Busey Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary, FirsTech, specializes in the evolving financial technology needs of small and medium-sized businesses, highly regulated enterprise industries, and financial institutions. FirsTech provides comprehensive and innovative payment technology solutions, including online, mobile, and voice-recognition bill payments; money and data movement; merchant services; direct debit services; lockbox remittance processing for payments made by mail; and walk-in payments at retail agents. Additionally, FirsTech simplifies client workflows through integrations enabling support with billing, reconciliation, bill reminders, and treasury services. More information about FirsTech can be found at firstechpayments.com.

    For the fourth consecutive year, Busey was named among 2025’s America’s Best Banks by Forbes. Ranked 88th overall, Busey was one of seven banks headquartered in Illinois included on this year’s list. Busey was also named among the 2024 Best Banks to Work For by American Banker, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Money Management by Pensions and Investments, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Illinois by Daily Herald Business Ledger, the 2025 Best Places to Work in Indiana by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and the 2024 Best Companies to Work For in Florida by Florida Trend magazine. We are honored to be consistently recognized globally, nationally and locally for our engaged culture of integrity and commitment to community development.

    NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION

    This earnings release contains certain financial information determined by methods other than GAAP. Management uses these non-GAAP measures, together with the related GAAP measures, in analysis of Busey’s performance and in making business decisions, as well as for comparison to Busey’s peers. Busey believes the adjusted measures are useful for investors and management to understand the effects of certain non-core and non-recurring items and provide additional perspective on Busey’s performance over time.

    The following tables present reconciliations between these non-GAAP measures and what management believes to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

    These non-GAAP disclosures have inherent limitations and are not audited. They should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for operating results reported in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies. Tax effected numbers included in these non-GAAP disclosures are based on estimated statutory rates, estimated federal income tax rates, or effective tax rates, as noted with the tables below.

    RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES (Unaudited)
     
    Pre-Provision Net Revenue and Related Measures
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses (GAAP)     15,768       196       6,375  
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)     (115,171 )     (78,167 )     (70,769 )
    Pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [a]   25,551       38,828       46,373  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     26,026       3,585       408  
    Provision for unfunded commitments1     3,141       (455 )     (678 )
    Realized (gain) loss on the sale of mortgage service rights                 (7,465 )
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 54,718     $ 41,958     $ 38,638  
                 
    Average total assets [c]   14,831,298       12,085,993       12,024,208  
                 
    Pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   0.70 %     1.28 %     1.55 %
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   1.50 %     1.38 %     1.29 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Net Income, Average Tangible Common Equity, and Related Ratios
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net income (loss) (GAAP) [a] $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
    Acquisition expenses     26,026       2,469       285  
    Restructuring expenses           1,116       123  
    Day 2 provision for credit losses1     42,433              
    Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments2     3,139              
    Net securities (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights                 (7,465 )
    Related tax (benefit) expense3     (22,069 )     (1,014 )     170  
    One-time deferred tax valuation adjustment4     4,591              
    Adjusted net income (Non-GAAP)5 [b] $ 39,898     $ 30,872     $ 25,713  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (GAAP) [c]   68,517,647       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share (GAAP) [a÷c] $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (Non-GAAP)6 [d]   69,502,717       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (Non-GAAP)5,6 [b÷d] $ 0.57     $ 0.53     $ 0.46  
                 
    Average total assets [e] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Return on average assets (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷e] (0.82 )%     0.93 %     0.88 %
    Adjusted return on average assets (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷e]   1.09 %     1.02 %     0.86 %
                 
    Average common equity   $ 1,932,407     $ 1,396,939     $ 1,275,724  
    Average goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (411,020 )     (367,400 )     (353,014 )
    Average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP) [f] $ 1,521,387     $ 1,029,539     $ 922,710  
                 
    Return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷f] (7.99 )%     10.86 %     11.43 %
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷f]   10.64 %     11.93 %     11.21 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. The Day 2 allowance for credit losses was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition to establish an allowance on non-PCD loans and is reflected within the provision for credit losses line on the Statement of Income.
    2. The Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and is reflected within the other noninterest expense line, as a component of total noninterest expense, on the Statement of Income.
    3. Tax benefits were calculated using tax rates of 25.3%, 26.8%, and 24.9% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.
    4. The deferred tax valuation adjustment was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and relates to the expansion of Busey’s footprint into new states. The deferred tax valuation adjustment is reflected within the income taxes line on the Statement of Income.
    5. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted net income for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for net securities gains and losses, realized net gains and losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, and one-time deferred tax valuation adjustments. In 2024, these adjusting items were previously presented as further adjustments to adjusted net income.
    6. Dilution includes shares that would have been dilutive if there had been net income during the period.
    7. Annualized measure.
    Tax-Equivalent Net Interest Income, Adjusted Net Interest Income, Net Interest Margin, and Adjusted Net Interest Margin
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [a]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
    Purchase accounting accretion related to business combinations     (2,728 )     (812 )     (204 )
    Adjusted net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 101,540     $ 81,212     $ 76,099  
                 
    Average interest-earning assets (Non-GAAP) [c] $ 13,363,594     $ 11,048,350     $ 11,005,903  
                 
    Net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   3.16 %     2.95 %     2.79 %
    Adjusted net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   3.08 %     2.92 %     2.78 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Noninterest Income, Revenue Measures, Adjusted Noninterest Expense, Efficiency Ratios, and Adjusted Noninterest Expense to Average Assets
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP) [a] $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
                 
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Noninterest income excluding net securities gains and losses (Non-GAAP) [c]   36,991       35,417       41,288  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights                 (7,465 )
    Adjusted noninterest income (Non-GAAP) [d] $ 36,991     $ 35,417     $ 33,823  
                 
    Tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [e = b+c] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 117,591  
    Adjusted tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [f = b+d] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 110,126  
    Operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [g = a+d] $ 140,722     $ 116,995     $ 109,677  
                 
    Adjusted noninterest income to operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [d÷g]   26.29 %     30.27 %     30.84 %
                 
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)   $ 115,171     $ 78,167     $ 70,769  
    Amortization of intangible assets     (3,083 )     (2,471 )     (2,409 )
    Noninterest expense excluding amortization of intangible assets (Non-GAAP) [h]   112,088       75,696       68,360  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     (26,026 )     (3,585 )     (408 )
    Provision for unfunded commitments2     (3,141 )     455       678  
    Adjusted noninterest expense (Non-GAAP)3 [i] $ 82,921     $ 72,566     $ 68,630  
                 
    Efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP) [h÷e]   79.35 %     64.45 %     58.13 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)3 [i÷f]   58.70 %     61.79 %     62.32 %
                 
    Average total assets [j] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Adjusted noninterest expense to average assets (Non-GAAP)4 [i÷j]   2.27 %     2.39 %     2.30 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    3. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted noninterest expense and the adjusted efficiency ratio for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for the provision for unfunded commitments. In 2024, these adjustments were previously presented as adjustments for adjusted core expense and the adjusted core efficiency ratio.
    4. Annualized measure.
    Tangible Assets, Tangible Common Equity, and Related Measures and Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Total assets (GAAP)   $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [a] $ 18,968,134     $ 11,680,747     $ 11,536,003  
                 
    Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)   $ 2,179,606     $ 1,383,269     $ 1,282,651  
    Preferred stock and additional paid in capital on preferred stock     (7,750 )            
    Common equity [b]   2,171,856       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)1 [c] $ 1,675,738     $ 1,017,294     $ 931,196  
                 
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [c÷a]   8.83 %     8.71 %     8.07 %
                 
    Ending number of common shares outstanding (GAAP) [d]   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  
    Book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [b÷d] $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [c÷d] $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  

    ___________________________________________

    1. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of tangible assets and tangible common equity for all periods presented to exclude any tax adjustment.
    Core Deposits and Related Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025
      December 31,
    2024
      March 31,
    2024
    Total deposits (GAAP) [a] $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Brokered deposits, excluding brokered time deposits of $250,000 or more     (722,309 )     (13,090 )     (6,001 )
    Time deposits of $250,000 or more     (967,262 )     (334,503 )     (326,795 )
    Core deposits (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 14,769,899     $ 9,634,897     $ 9,627,395  
                 
    Core deposits to total deposits (Non-GAAP) [b÷a]   89.73 %     96.52 %     96.66 %
     

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to Busey’s financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of Busey’s management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “position,” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this document, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Busey undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events.

    A number of factors, many of which are beyond Busey’s ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in any forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (1) the strength of the local, state, national, and international economies and financial markets (including effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints); (2) changes in, and the interpretation and prioritization of, local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and governmental policies (including those concerning Busey’s general business); (3) the economic impact of any future terrorist threats or attacks, widespread disease or pandemics, or other adverse external events that could cause economic deterioration or instability in credit markets (including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East); (4) unexpected results of acquisitions, including the acquisition of CrossFirst, which may include the failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions and the possibility that the transaction and integration costs may be greater than anticipated; (5) the imposition of tariffs or other governmental policies impacting the value of products produced by Busey’s commercial borrowers; (6) new or revised accounting policies and practices as may be adopted by state and federal regulatory banking agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; (7) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of Busey’s assets (including the impact of sustained elevated interest rates); (8) increased competition in the financial services sector (including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and fintech companies) and the inability to attract new customers; (9) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (10) the loss of key executives or associates, talent shortages, and employee turnover; (11) unexpected outcomes and costs of existing or new litigation, investigations, or other legal proceedings, inquiries, and regulatory actions involving Busey (including with respect to Busey’s Illinois franchise taxes); (12) fluctuations in the value of securities held in Busey’s securities portfolio, including as a result of changes in interest rates; (13) credit risk and risk from concentrations (by type of borrower, geographic area, collateral, and industry), within Busey’s loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (14) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (15) the level of non-performing assets on Busey’s balance sheets; (16) interruptions involving information technology and communications systems or third-party servicers; (17) breaches or failures of information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents; (18) the economic impact on Busey and its customers of climate change, natural disasters, and exceptional weather occurrences such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and droughts; (19) the ability to successfully manage liquidity risk, which may increase dependence on non-core funding sources such as brokered deposits, and may negatively impact Busey’s cost of funds; (20) the ability to maintain an adequate level of allowance for credit losses on loans; (21) the effectiveness of Busey’s risk management framework; and (22) the ability of Busey to manage the risks associated with the foregoing. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements.

    Additional information concerning Busey and its business, including additional factors that could materially affect Busey’s financial results, is included in Busey’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    END NOTES

    1 Annualized measure.
    2 Represents a non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”
    3 The blended benchmark consists of 60% MSCI All Country World Index and 40% Bloomberg Intermediate US Government/Credit Total Return Index.
    4 Estimated uninsured and uncollateralized deposits consist of account balances in excess of the $250 thousand Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit, less intercompany accounts, fully collateralized accounts (including preferred deposits), and pass-through accounts where clients have deposit insurance at the correspondent financial institution.
    5 On- and off-balance sheet liquidity is comprised of cash and cash equivalents, debt securities excluding those pledged as collateral, brokered deposits, and Busey’s borrowing capacity through its revolving credit facility, the FHLB, the Federal Reserve Bank, and federal funds purchased lines.
    6 Capital amounts and ratios for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    INVESTOR CONTACT: Scott A. Phillips, Interim Chief Financial Officer | 239-689-7167

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Helium Evolution Announces Filing of Annual 2024 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, Alberta, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Helium Evolution Incorporated (TSXV:HEVI) (“HEVI” or the “Company“), a Canadian-based helium exploration company focused on developing assets in southern Saskatchewan, today announced the filing of the Company’s annual financial statements and associated management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 (the “Annual Report”).

    Complete details of the Annual Report are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca, and on HEVI’s website.

    Three Months and Year Ended December 31, 2024 Highlights

      Three months ended Year ended
    Tabular amounts in thousands of
    Canadian Dollars, except share and per share amounts
    December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023
    Financial        
    Net loss 713 1,719 1,391 2,953
    Net loss per share, basic and diluted 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03
    Cash 3,829 6,330 3,829 6,330
    Working capital 3,166 5,743 3,166 5,743
    Total assets 10,601 11,639 10,601 11,639
    Total liabilities 906 872 906 872
    Weighted average shares outstanding 96,033,974 96,033,974    
    Basic and diluted1 96,033,974 96,033,974

    1The weighted average number of common shares outstanding is not increased for outstanding stock options and warrants when the effect is anti-dilutive.

    During the year ended December 31, 2024, HEVI remained focused on operational execution and disciplined growth. The Company closed the year with a strong financial foundation, including a positive working capital position of $3.2 million. Underscoring its momentum, HEVI announced a combined $4.8 million financing on March 10, 2025 and April 7, 2025, positioning the Company for additional development and drilling activity throughout 2025.

    Building upon past successes, HEVI, together with its partner, North American Helium Inc. (“NAH”), plan to expand its development efforts in the Mankota region, as shown in the adjacent map. To date, HEVI and NAH have successfully drilled six helium discovery wells, further validating the potential of the region. Additional drilling is scheduled for the second half of 2025.

    To support future production, NAH is actively pursuing the installation of a helium facility to tie-in the wells in the northern part of the discovery. The helium facility is expected to be operational in the fourth quarter of 2025, marking a major milestone for HEVI.

    “We are incredibly proud of the progress we made in 2024 and the strong foundation we’ve built for 2025,” said Greg Robb, President and CEO of HEVI. “With our helium discoveries, our strategic partnership with our newest shareholder and the anticipated commissioning of a helium facility later this year, HEVI is well-positioned to become a key player in the North American helium industry.”

    Stay Connected to Helium Evolution

    Shareholders and other parties interested in learning more about the Helium Evolution opportunity are encouraged to visit the Company’s website, which includes an updated corporate presentation, and are invited to follow the Company on LinkedIn and X for ongoing corporate updates and helium industry information. Helium Evolution also provides an extensive, commissioned ‘deep-dive’ research report prepared by a third party whose background includes serving as a research analyst for several bank-owned and independent investment dealers.

    About Helium Evolution Incorporated

    Helium Evolution is a Canadian-based helium exploration company holding the largest helium land rights position in North America among publicly-traded companies, focused on developing assets in southern Saskatchewan. The Company has over five million acres of land under permit near proven discoveries of economic helium concentrations which will support scaling the exploration and development efforts across its land base. HEVI’s management and board are executing a differentiated strategy to become a leading supplier of sustainably-produced helium for the growing global helium market.

    For further information, please contact:

    Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    This news release contains statements that constitute “forward-looking statements.” Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, performance or achievements, or developments in the industry to differ materially from the anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “projects,” “potential” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions “will,” “would,” “may,” “could” or “should” occur.

    Forward-looking statements in this document include statements regarding the Company’s expectations regarding future production from the helium discovery wells, the Company’s expectations regarding scalable helium production from its land generally, the Company and/or NAH’s plans to drill more wells, completion of the financing as announced, installation of production facilities including the timing thereof, the Company becoming a leading supplier of sustainably-produced helium, timeline of future updates, the Company’s belief regarding becoming a key player in the North American helium industry, the Company’s beliefs regarding growth of the global helium market and other statements that are not historical facts. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or other future events, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors and risks include, among others: NAH may be unsuccessful in drilling commercially productive wells; the Company and/or NAH may choose to defer, accelerate or abandon its exploration and development plans including future drilling; the Company and/or NAH may determine not to bring the helium wells onto production; the Company and/or NAH may abandon, defer or accelerate plans and decisions regarding production facilities; new laws or regulations and/or unforeseen events could adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations; stock markets have experienced volatility that often has been unrelated to the performance of companies and such volatility may adversely affect the price of the Company’s securities regardless of its operating performance; risks generally associated with the exploration for and production of resources; the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to expenses and the Company’s working capital position; constraint in the availability of services; commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations; adverse weather or break-up conditions; and uncertainties resulting from potential delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures.

    When relying on forward-looking statements and information to make decisions, investors and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and risks other uncertainties and potential events. The Company has assumed that the material factors referred to in the previous paragraphs will not cause such forward-looking statements and information to differ materially from actual results or events. However, the list of these factors is not exhaustive and is subject to change and there can be no assurance that such assumptions will reflect the actual outcome of such items or factors. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking information. Such information, although considered reasonable by management at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect and actual results may differ materially from those anticipated. Forward-looking statements contained in this news release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. The forward-looking statements contained in this news release are made as of the date of this news release. The Company does not intend, and expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to, update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

    Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/42ee5d3a-97d0-432b-8d88-13e070ae7bf3

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Baker Hughes Company Announces First-Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    First-quarter highlights

    • Orders of $6.5 billion, including $3.2 billion of IET orders.
    • RPO of $33.2 billion, including record IET RPO of $30.4 billion.
    • Revenue of $6.4 billion, consistent year-over-year.
    • Attributable net income of $402 million.
    • GAAP diluted EPS of $0.40 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $0.51.
    • Adjusted EBITDA* of $1,037 million, up 10% year-over-year.
    • Cash flows from operating activities of $709 million and free cash flow* of $454 million.
    • Returns to shareholders of $417 million, including $188 million of share repurchases.

    HOUSTON and LONDON, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes Company (Nasdaq: BKR) (“Baker Hughes” or the “Company”) announced results today for the first quarter of 2025.

    “Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer.

    “In our IET segment, we booked $3.2 billion of orders, including our first data center awards, totaling more than 350 MW of power solutions for this rapidly evolving market. In addition to expanding opportunities for data centers, we have a strong pipeline of LNG, FPSO and gas infrastructure projects that support our order outlook for this year.”

    “In OFSE, EBITDA remained resilient as our margins saw noticeable improvement compared to last year even while segment revenue fell. This is a testament to the team’s hard work in changing the way the business operates.”

    “Although our outlook is tempered by broader macro and trade policy uncertainty, we remain confident in our strategy and the resilience of our portfolio. We believe Baker Hughes is well positioned to navigate near-term challenges and deliver sustainable growth in shareholder value.”

    “I want to thank our employees, whose hard work, dedication and focus have been instrumental to the continued success of Baker Hughes. As we continue to execute our strategy amidst an uncertain macro backdrop, we remain committed to our customers, shareholders and employees,” concluded Simonelli.

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

      Three Months Ended   Variance
    (in millions except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 6,459 $ 7,496 $ 6,542   (14 %) (1 %)
    Revenue   6,427   7,364   6,418   (13 %) %
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes   402   1,179   455   (66 %) (12 %)
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes*   509   694   429   (27 %) 19 %
    Adjusted EBITDA*   1,037   1,310   943   (21 %) 10 %
    Diluted earnings per share (EPS)   0.40   1.18   0.45   (66 %) (11 %)
    Adjusted diluted EPS*   0.51   0.70   0.43   (27 %) 19 %
    Cash flow from operating activities   709   1,189   784   (40 %) (10 %)
    Free cash flow*   454   894   502   (49 %) (10 %)

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Certain columns and rows in our tables and financial statements may not sum up due to the use of rounded numbers.

    Quarter Highlights

    Baker Hughes expanded its leadership position in liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) in the first quarter, including a liquefaction train award from Bechtel for a project in North America, where the Company will provide four main refrigerant compressors driven by LM6000+ gas turbines and four expander-compressors. This award builds on the previously announced December 2024 award and further demonstrates the strength of the Company’s collaboration with Bechtel to support North America LNG development.

    During the quarter, Industrial & Energy Technology (“IET”) signed key strategic framework agreements with LNG operators. The Company agreed to provide gas turbines and refrigerant compressor technology, along with maintenance services, for Trains 4 to 8 of NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG Facility. Baker Hughes also reached an agreement with Argent LNG to provide liquefaction and power solutions and related aftermarket services for its proposed 24 MTPA LNG export facility in Louisiana. The project will employ Baker Hughes’ NMBL™ modularized LNG solution, driven by the LM9000 gas turbine, while also utilizing the Company’s iCenter™ and Cordant™ digital solution, to enhance the plant’s operational efficiency.

    Baker Hughes also demonstrated its continuous commitment to critical gas infrastructure projects with a strategic win in the North America pipeline compression market. The award includes the provision of two gas compression stations for a total of 10 Frame 5/2E gas turbines and 10 centrifugal compressors, anti-surge valves and critical spare parts.

    In the first quarter, Baker Hughes made significant progress in reliable and sustainable power solutions deployment for data centers. In addition to being awarded over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines to power data centers with various other customers, the Company partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to accelerate the development of large-scale carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) and power solutions for data centers and industrial customers in the U.S. This partnership will leverage technologies and services across the Baker Hughes enterprise by providing CO₂ compression, NovaLT™ gas turbines, digital monitoring solutions, well construction and completion services.

    In continued demonstration of Gas Technology’s lifecycle offerings in IET, the Company received several aftermarket service awards during the quarter. In Algeria, the Gas Technology Services (“GTS”) team is partnering with SONATRACH to deliver an upgrade solution for the modernization of a key compressor station. In the Middle East, Gas Technology received multiple equipment and services awards to support one of the world’s largest gas processing plants. The scope includes rejuvenation of two existing gas turbines to drive new compressors and the supply of a third compression train to support production expansion.

    IET’s Industrial Solutions gained momentum with its Cordant™ Asset Performance Management (“APM”) solution, securing several contracts with customers across multiple regions. ADNOC Offshore will deploy the full APM suite to enhance production availability and efficiency. In the Americas, a large international oil company will conduct a proof of concept across multiple equipment trains, to support a shift from proactive to predictive maintenance. In Australia, the Company signed agreements to develop asset maintenance strategies for new mine sites supporting truck fleet maintenance.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment (“OFSE”) received a significant award from ExxonMobil Guyana to provide specialty chemicals and related services for its Uaru and Whiptail offshore greenfield developments in the country’s prolific Stabroek Block, highlighting the differentiated capabilities of our Production Solutions offering. For this multi-year contract, the scope will cover topsides, subsea, water injection and utility chemicals to help ExxonMobil Guyana achieve optimal production.

    OFSE continues to leverage the Company’s innovative solutions to help Petrobras unlock Brazil’s vast energy supply. In the quarter and following an open tender, Baker Hughes received a significant, multi-year fully integrated completions systems contract from Petrobras across multiple deepwater fields. A range of Baker Hughes’ technologies, including the new SureCONTROLTM Premium interval control valve, has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the country’s offshore developments.

    OFSE secured a multi-year contract with Dubai Petroleum Establishment, for and on behalf of Dubai Supply Authority, to provide integrated coiled-tubing drilling services for the Company’s Margham Gas storage project. This follows a third-quarter 2024 IET award for integrated compressor line units for the same project, demonstrating growing commercial synergies across Baker Hughes’ diverse portfolio.

    The Company drove growth in Mature Assets Solutions, signing a multi-year framework agreement with Equinor to help establish a new Center of Excellence for Plug & Abandonment work in the North Sea. Based within OFSE’s operations in Bergen and Stavanger, Norway, this hub will ensure economical, reliable solutions are implemented to responsibly abandon each well, allowing Equinor to maximize value of their assets and allocate more resources to exploration and discovery.

    On the digital front, OFSE received an award from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”) to expand deployment of Leucipa™ automated field production solution for all its wells, including those with non-Baker Hughes electric submersible pumps, in the Absheron and Gunseli fields. Leucipa also marked its first deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa through an agreement with the NNPC/FIRST E&P joint venture, which will utilize the platform across its offshore wells in the Niger Delta.

    Consolidated Financial Results

    Revenue for the quarter was $6,427 million, a decrease of 13% sequentially and up $9 million year-over-year. The increase in revenue year-over-year was driven by an increase in IET and partially offset by a decrease in OFSE.

    The Company’s total book-to-bill ratio in the first quarter of 2025 was 1.0; the IET book-to-bill ratio was 1.1.

    Net income as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), for the first quarter of 2025 was $402 million. Net income decreased $777 million sequentially and decreased $53 million year-over-year.

    Adjusted net income (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $509 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $108 million. A list of the adjusting items and associated reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2025 was down 27% sequentially and up 19% year-over-year.

    Depreciation and amortization for the first quarter of 2025 was $285 million.

    Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $1,037 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $140 million. See Table 1a in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was down 21% sequentially and up 10% year-over-year.

    The sequential decrease in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume in both segments, partially offset by productivity and structural cost-out initiatives. The year-over-year increase in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by increased volume in IET including higher proportionate growth in Gas Technology Equipment (“GTE”) and productivity, structural cost-out initiatives and higher pricing in both segments, partially offset by decreased volume and business mix in OFSE and cost inflation in both segments.

    Other Financial Items

    Remaining Performance Obligations (“RPO”) in the first quarter of 2025 ended at $33.2 billion, a decrease of $0.1 billion from the fourth quarter of 2024. OFSE RPO was $2.8 billion, down 7% sequentially, while IET RPO was $30.4 billion, up $300 million sequentially. Within IET RPO, GTE RPO was $11.9 billion and GTS RPO was $15.1 billion.

    Income tax expense in the first quarter of 2025 was $152 million.

    Other (income) expense, net in the first quarter of 2025 was $140 million, primarily related to changes in fair value for equity securities of $140 million.

    GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.40. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (a non-GAAP financial measure) was $0.51. Excluded from adjusted diluted earnings per share were all items listed in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Cash flow from operating activities was $709 million for the first quarter of 2025. Free cash flow (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the quarter was $454 million. A reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1c in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets, were $255 million for the first quarter of 2025, of which $158 million was for OFSE and $83 million was for IET.

    Results by Reporting Segment

    The following segment discussions and variance explanations are intended to reflect management’s view of the relevant comparisons of financial results on a sequential or year-over-year basis, depending on the business dynamics of the reporting segments.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 3,281   $ 3,740   $ 3,624     (12 %) (9 %)
    Revenue $ 3,499   $ 3,871   $ 3,783     (10 %) (8 %)
    EBITDA $ 623   $ 755   $ 644     (18 %) (3 %)
    EBITDA margin   17.8 %   19.5 %   17.0 %   -1.7pts 0.8pts
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Well Construction $ 892 $ 943 $ 1,061   (5 %) (16 %)
    Completions, Intervention, and Measurements   925   1,022   1,006   (9 %) (8 %)
    Production Solutions   899   974   945   (8 %) (5 %)
    Subsea & Surface Pressure Systems   782   932   771   (16 %) 1 %
    Total Revenue $ 3,499 $ 3,871 $ 3,783   (10 %) (8 %)
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Geographic Region March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    North America $ 922 $ 971 $ 990   (5 %) (7 %)
    Latin America   568   661   637   (14 %) (11 %)
    Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa   580   740   750   (22 %) (23 %)
    Middle East/Asia   1,429   1,499   1,405   (5 %) 2 %
    Total Revenue $ 3,499 $ 3,871 $ 3,783   (10 %) (8 %)
                 
    North America $ 922 $ 971 $ 990   (5 %) (7 %)
    International $ 2,577 $ 2,900 $ 2,793   (11 %) (8 %)

    EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $226 million, $229 million, and $222 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    OFSE orders of $3,281 million for the first quarter of 2025 decreased by 12% sequentially. Subsea and Surface Pressure Systems orders were $532 million, down 34% sequentially, and down 16% year-over-year.

    OFSE revenue of $3,499 million for the first quarter of 2025 was down 10% sequentially, and down 8% year-over-year.

    North America revenue was $922 million, down 5% sequentially. International revenue was $2,577 million, down 11% sequentially, with declines across all regions.

    Segment EBITDA for the first quarter of 2025 was $623 million, a decrease of $132 million, or 18% sequentially. The sequential decrease in EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume, partially mitigated by productivity from structural cost-out initiatives.

    Industrial & Energy Technology

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 3,178   $ 3,756   $ 2,918     (15 %) 9 %
    Revenue $ 2,928   $ 3,492   $ 2,634     (16 %) 11 %
    EBITDA $ 501   $ 639   $ 386     (22 %) 30 %
    EBITDA margin   17.1 %   18.3 %   14.7 %   -1.2pts 2.4pts
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Orders by Product Line March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,335 $ 1,865 $ 1,230   (28 %) 9 %
    Gas Technology Services   913   902   692   1 % 32 %
    Total Gas Technology   2,248   2,767   1,922   (19 %) 17 %
    Industrial Products   501   515   546   (3 %) (8 %)
    Industrial Solutions   281   320   257   (12 %) 10 %
    Total Industrial Technology   782   835   803   (6 %) (3 %)
    Climate Technology Solutions   148   154   193   (4 %) (23 %)
    Total Orders $ 3,178 $ 3,756 $ 2,918   (15 %) 9 %
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
      Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,456 $ 1,663 $ 1,210   (12 %) 20 %
    Gas Technology Services   592   796   614   (26 %) (4 %)
    Total Gas Technology   2,047   2,459   1,824   (17 %) 12 %
    Industrial Products   445   548   462   (19 %) (4 %)
    Industrial Solutions   258   282   265   (8 %) (2 %)
    Total Industrial Technology   703   830   727   (15 %) (3 %)
    Climate Technology Solutions   178   204   83   (13 %) 114 %
    Total Revenue $ 2,928 $ 3,492 $ 2,634   (16 %) 11 %

    EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $53 million, $56 million, and $56 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    IET orders of $3,178 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased by $260 million, or 9% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by Gas Technology, up $326 million or 17% year-over-year.

    IET revenue of $2,928 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased $294 million, or 11% year-over-year. The increase was driven by Gas Technology Equipment, up $246 million or 20% year-over-year, and Climate Technology Solutions, up $95 million or 114% year-over-year.

    Segment EBITDA for the quarter was $501 million, an increase of $114 million, or 30% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase in segment EBITDA was driven by productivity, positive pricing and increased volume including higher proportionate growth in GTE, partially offset by cost inflation.

    Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Management provides non-GAAP financial measures because it believes such measures are widely accepted financial indicators used by investors and analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of operating performance (including adjusted EBITDA; adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes; and adjusted diluted earnings per share) and liquidity (free cash flow) and that these measures may be used by investors to make informed investment decisions. Management believes that the exclusion of certain identified items from several key operating performance measures enables us to evaluate our operations more effectively, to identify underlying trends in the business, and to establish operational goals for certain management compensation purposes. Management also believes that free cash flow is an important supplemental measure of our cash performance but should not be considered as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities presented in accordance with GAAP.

    Table 1a. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions) March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 402 $ 1,179   $ 455  
    Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   7   11     8  
    Provision (benefit) for income taxes   152   (398 )   178  
    Interest expense, net   51   54     41  
    Depreciation & amortization   285   291     283  
    Restructuring     258      
    Inventory impairment(1)     73      
    Change in fair value of equity securities(2)   140   (196 )   (52 )
    Other charges and credits(2)     38     30  
    Adjusted EBITDA (non-GAAP)   1,037   1,310     943  
    Corporate costs   85   84     88  
    Other income / (expense) not allocated to segments   1        
    Total Segment EBITDA (non-GAAP) $ 1,124 $ 1,394   $ 1,030  
    OFSE   623   755     644  
    IET   501   639     386  

    (1) Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

    (2) Change in fair value of equity securities and other charges and credits are reported in “Other (income) expense, net” on the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

    Table 1a reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA exclude the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1b. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions, except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 402   $ 1,179   $ 455  
    Restructuring       258      
    Inventory impairment       73      
    Change in fair value of equity securities   140     (196 )   (52 )
    Other adjustments       30     32  
    Tax adjustments(1)   (32 )   (650 )   (6 )
    Total adjustments, net of income tax   108     (485 )   (26 )
    Less: adjustments attributable to noncontrolling interests            
    Adjustments attributable to Baker Hughes   108     (485 )   (26 )
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes (non-GAAP) $ 509   $ 694   $ 429  
           
    Denominator:      
    Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding diluted   999     999     1,004  
    Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP) $ 0.51   $ 0.70   $ 0.43  

    (1) All periods reflect the tax associated with the other (income) loss adjustments.

    Table 1b reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes. Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes excludes the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1c. Reconciliation of Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions) March 31,
    2025
    December 31,
    2024
    March 31,
    2024
    Net cash flows from operating activities (GAAP) $ 709   $ 1,189   $ 784  
    Add: cash used for capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets   (255 )   (295 )   (282 )
    Free cash flow (non-GAAP) $ 454   $ 894   $ 502  

    Table 1c reconciles net cash flows from operating activities, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to free cash flow. Free cash flow is defined as net cash flows from operating activities less expenditures for capital assets plus proceeds from disposal of assets.

     
    Financial Tables (GAAP)
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)
     
    (Unaudited)
     
      Three Months Ended March 31,
    (In millions, except per share amounts)   2025     2024  
    Revenue $ 6,427   $ 6,418  
    Costs and expenses:    
    Cost of revenue   4,952     4,976  
    Selling, general and administrative   577     618  
    Research and development costs   146     164  
    Other (income) expense, net   140     (22 )
    Interest expense, net   51     41  
    Income before income taxes   561     641  
    Provision for income taxes   (152 )   (178 )
    Net income   409     463  
    Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   7     8  
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes Company $ 402   $ 455  
         
    Per share amounts:  
    Basic income per Class A common stock $ 0.41   $ 0.46  
    Diluted income per Class A common stock $ 0.40   $ 0.45  
         
    Weighted average shares:    
    Class A basic   992     998  
    Class A diluted   999     1,004  
         
    Cash dividend per Class A common stock $ 0.23   $ 0.21  
         
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
     
    (Unaudited)
     
    (In millions) March 31, 2025 December 31, 2024
    ASSETS
    Current Assets:    
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,277 $ 3,364
    Current receivables, net   6,710   7,122
    Inventories, net   5,161   4,954
    All other current assets   1,693   1,771
    Total current assets   16,841   17,211
    Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated depreciation   5,168   5,127
    Goodwill   6,126   6,078
    Other intangible assets, net   3,927   3,951
    Contract and other deferred assets   1,680   1,730
    All other assets   4,368   4,266
    Total assets $ 38,110 $ 38,363
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
    Current Liabilities:    
    Accounts payable $ 4,465 $ 4,542
    Short-term debt   55   53
    Progress collections and deferred income   5,589   5,672
    All other current liabilities   2,485   2,724
    Total current liabilities   12,594   12,991
    Long-term debt   5,969   5,970
    Liabilities for pensions and other postretirement benefits   985   988
    All other liabilities   1,356   1,359
    Equity   17,206   17,055
    Total liabilities and equity $ 38,110 $ 38,363
         
    Outstanding Baker Hughes Company shares:    
    Class A common stock   990   990
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
     
    (Unaudited)
      Three Months Ended March 31,
    (In millions)   2025     2024  
    Cash flows from operating activities:    
    Net income $ 409   $ 463  
    Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:    
    Depreciation and amortization   285     283  
    Stock-based compensation cost   50     51  
    Change in fair value of equity securities   140     (52 )
    Benefit for deferred income taxes   (53 )   (24 )
    Working capital   218     209  
    Other operating items, net   (340 )   (146 )
    Net cash flows provided by operating activities   709     784  
    Cash flows from investing activities:    
    Expenditures for capital assets   (300 )   (333 )
    Proceeds from disposal of assets   45     51  
    Other investing items, net   (55 )   13  
    Net cash flows used in investing activities   (310 )   (269 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:    
    Dividends paid   (229 )   (210 )
    Repurchase of Class A common stock   (188 )   (158 )
    Other financing items, net   (85 )   (59 )
    Net cash flows used in financing activities   (502 )   (427 )
    Effect of currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents   16     (17 )
    Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   (87 )   71  
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period   3,364     2,646  
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 3,277   $ 2,717  
    Supplemental cash flows disclosures:    
    Income taxes paid, net of refunds $ 207   $ 108  
    Interest paid $ 50   $ 48  

    Supplemental Financial Information

    Supplemental financial information can be found on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com in the Financial Information section under Quarterly Results.

    Conference Call and Webcast

    The Company has scheduled an investor conference call to discuss management’s outlook and the results reported in today’s earnings announcement. The call will begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, 8:30 a.m. Central time on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, the content of which is not part of this earnings release. The conference call will be broadcast live via a webcast and can be accessed by visiting the Events and Presentations page on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available on the website for one month following the webcast.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release (and oral statements made regarding the subjects of this release) may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (each a “forward-looking statement”). Forward-looking statements concern future circumstances and results and other statements that are not historical facts and are sometimes identified by the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “would,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “target,” “goal” or other similar words or expressions. There are many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2024 and those set forth from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The documents are available through the Company’s website at: www.investors.bakerhughes.com or through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering and Analysis Retrieval system at: www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements.

    Our expectations regarding our business outlook and business plans; the business plans of our customers; oil and natural gas market conditions; cost and availability of resources; economic, legal and regulatory conditions, and other matters are only our forecasts regarding these matters.

    These forward-looking statements, including forecasts, may be substantially different from actual results, which are affected by many risks, along with the following risk factors and the timing of any of these risk factors:

    • Economic and political conditions – the impact of worldwide economic conditions and rising inflation; the impact of tariffs and the potential for significant increases thereto; the impact of global trade policy and the potential for significant changes thereto; the effect that declines in credit availability may have on worldwide economic growth and demand for hydrocarbons; foreign currency exchange fluctuations and changes in the capital markets in locations where we operate; and the impact of government disruptions and sanctions.
    • Orders and RPO – our ability to execute on orders and RPO in accordance with agreed specifications, terms and conditions and convert those orders and RPO to revenue and cash.
    • Oil and gas market conditions – the level of petroleum industry exploration, development and production expenditures; the price of, volatility in pricing of, and the demand for crude oil and natural gas; drilling activity; drilling permits for and regulation of the shelf and the deepwater drilling; excess productive capacity; crude and product inventories; liquefied natural gas supply and demand; seasonal and other adverse weather conditions that affect the demand for energy; severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, that affect exploration and production activities; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) policy and the adherence by OPEC nations to their OPEC production quotas.
    • Terrorism and geopolitical risks – war, military action, terrorist activities or extended periods of international conflict, particularly involving any petroleum-producing or consuming regions, including Russia and Ukraine; and the recent conflict in the Middle East; labor disruptions, civil unrest or security conditions where we operate; potentially burdensome taxation, expropriation of assets by governmental action; cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents or attacks; epidemic outbreaks.

    About Baker Hughes:

    Baker Hughes (Nasdaq: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions to energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com.

    For more information, please contact:

    Investor Relations

    Chase Mulvehill
    +1 346-297-2561
    investor.relations@bakerhughes.com 

    Media Relations

    Adrienne Lynch
    +1 713-906-8407 
    adrienne.lynch@bakerhughes.com 

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: ECN Capital Schedules Q1-2025 Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ECN Capital Corp. (TSX: ECN) (“ECN Capital” or “the Company”) announced today that it intends to file its financial statements and management discussion and analysis for the three-month period ended March 31, 2025, after markets close on Thursday, May 8, 2025.

    The Company will host an analyst briefing to discuss these results commencing at 5:30 PM (ET) on Thursday, May 8, 2025. The call can be accessed as follows:

    A telephone replay of the conference call may also be accessed until June 8, 2025, by dialing 1-800-645-7964 and entering the passcode 5036#.

    About ECN Capital Corp.

    With managed assets of US$6.9 billion, ECN Capital Corp. (TSX: ECN) is a leading provider of business services to North American based banks, credit unions, life insurance companies, pension funds and institutional investors (collectively our “Partners”). ECN Capital originates, manages and advises on credit assets on behalf of its Partners, specifically consumer (manufactured housing and recreational vehicle and marine) loans and commercial (inventory finance and rental) loans. Our Partners are seeking high quality assets to match with their deposits, term insurance or other liabilities. These services are offered through two operating segments: (i) Manufactured Housing Finance, and (ii) Recreational Vehicles and Marine Finance.

    Contact
    Katherine Moradiellos
    561-631-8739
    kmoradiellos@ecncapitalcorp.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Willis Lease Finance Corporation Announces Timing of First Quarter 2025 Earnings and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COCONUT CREEK, Fla., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Willis Lease Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: WLFC) (“WLFC”) plans to announce its financial results for the first quarter of 2025 on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

    WLFC plans to hold a conference call led by members of WLFC’s executive management team on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time to discuss its first quarter 2025 results. Individuals wishing to participate in the conference call should dial: US and Canada (800) 289-0459, International +1 (646) 828-8082, wait for the conference operator and provide the operator with the Conference ID 578662. The conference call may also be accessed by registering via the following link: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1716437&tp_key=f56060bee8. A digital replay will be available two hours after the completion of the conference call. To access the replay, please visit our website at www.wlfc.global under the Investor Relations section for details.

    A copy of this press release will be posted to the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website, www.wlfc.global, prior to the call.

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation leases large and regional spare commercial aircraft engines, auxiliary power units and aircraft to airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers and maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers worldwide. These leasing activities are integrated with engine and aircraft trading, engine lease pools and asset management services through Willis Asset Management Limited, as well as various end-of-life solutions for engines and aviation materials provided through Willis Aeronautical Services, Inc. Additionally, through Willis Engine Repair Center®, Jet Centre by Willis, and Willis Aviation Services Limited, the Company’s service offerings include Part 145 engine maintenance, aircraft line and base maintenance, aircraft disassembly, parking and storage, airport FBO and ground and cargo handling services.

    CONTACT: Scott B. Flaherty
      Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
      sflaherty@willislease.com
      561.413.0112

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian women are wary of AI being used in breast cancer screening – new research

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Pearce, Associate Professor, Health Economics, University of Sydney

    Okrasiuk/Shutterstock

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in many aspects of society, including health care. For example, it’s already used for robotic surgery and to provide virtual mental health support.

    In recent years, scientists have developed AI algorithms that can analyse mammograms for signs of breast cancer. These algorithms may be as good as or better at finding cancers than human radiologists, and save the health-care system money.

    At the same time, evidence for the accuracy of AI in breast cancer screening is still emerging. And we need to ensure the benefits would outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis. This is where small cancers are detected that wouldn’t cause harm, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

    In a new study, my colleagues and I wanted to understand how Australian women – who would be affected if AI were to be introduced into breast screening in the future – feel about the technology.

    AI and breast cancer screening

    Breast cancer screening programs reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer by finding cancer early.

    In Australia, as in many countries around the world, two specially trained health professionals, usually radiologists, review each screening mammogram for signs of cancer. If the two radiologists disagree, a third is consulted.

    This double reading approach improves cancer detection rates without recalling too many women for further testing unnecessarily. However, it’s resource intensive. And there’s currently a shortage of radiologists worldwide.

    AI has been investigated to support radiologists, replace a radiologist, or as a triage tool to identify the mammograms at highest risk so these can be reviewed by a radiologist. However, there’s no consensus yet as to how to best implement AI in breast cancer screening.

    Breast cancer screening programs reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer.
    YAKOBCHUK VIACHESLAV/Shutterstock

    Our study

    The success of cancer screening programs depends on high rates of participation. While people are generally receptive to AI, in previous research, many have reported being unwilling to trust AI with their health care.

    There are concerns introducing AI into breast cancer screening programs could jeopardise screening participation rates if people do not trust AI.

    We asked 802 women if and how they thought AI should be implemented in breast cancer screening. Our sample was generally representative of the population of women in Australia eligible for screening.

    We measured how their preferences were influenced by factors such as:

    • how the AI was used (whether it supplemented radiologists, replaced one or both radiologists, or was used for triage)

    • how accurate the AI algorithm was

    • who owned the AI algorithm (for example, the Australian government department of health, an Australian company or an international company)

    • how representative the algorithm was of the Australian population (for example, the algorithm may not work as well for people from some ethnic groups)

    • how privacy was managed

    • how long patients had to wait for the results of their mammogram.

    We used the responses to assess which factors were most important and how the introduction of AI might influence participation in breast cancer screening.

    Before the survey, we provided participants with information about AI and how it could be used in breast cancer screening. The information we provided may have changed participants’ beliefs and preferences around the use of AI in this context relative to the general population. This could be a limitation of our study.

    What we found

    Overall, we saw mixed reactions to the introduction of AI into breast cancer screening. Some 40% of respondents were open to using AI, on the condition it was more accurate than human radiologists. In contrast, 42% were strongly opposed to using AI, while 18% had reservations.

    In general, participants wanted AI to be accurate, Australian-owned, representative of Australian women, and faster than human radiologists before implementation.

    Notably, up to 22% of respondents reported they might be less likely to participate in breast cancer screening if AI was implemented in a way that made them uncomfortable.

    It’s possible attitudes to AI may differ in contexts with different social values or existing screening practices to Australia. But our findings were broadly consistent with what we see in other countries.

    Around the world, women are generally receptive to the benefits of AI in breast cancer screening. But they feel strongly that AI should supplement or support clinicians, rather than replace them.

    The success of breast cancer screening programs depends on high rates of participation.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    We need to proceed carefully

    AI holds promise for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of breast cancer screening in the future.

    That said, these benefits may be offset if screening participation goes down. This is particularly concerning in Australia, where participation rates in BreastScreen are already relatively low (less than 50%).

    Implementing AI without addressing community concerns around the accuracy, ownership, privacy and implementation model could undermine trust in breast cancer screening programs.

    Policymakers should carefully consider community concerns about the implementation of AI technology in health care before proceeding. And breast cancer screening participants will need reliable information to understand the risks and benefits of AI in screening services.

    If this is not done properly, and screening participation falls lower as a result, this could lead to more breast cancers being diagnosed later and therefore being harder to treat.

    Alison Pearce received funding from Sydney Cancer Institute for this project.

    ref. Australian women are wary of AI being used in breast cancer screening – new research – https://theconversation.com/australian-women-are-wary-of-ai-being-used-in-breast-cancer-screening-new-research-253340

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: SEC Charges PGI Global Founder with $198 Million Crypto Asset and Foreign Exchange Fraud Scheme

    Source: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ramil Palafox for orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that raised approximately $198 million from investors worldwide and for misappropriating more than $57 million of investor funds.

    According to the SEC’s complaint, Palafox’s company, known as PGI Global, claimed to be a crypto asset and foreign exchange trading company. From January 2020 through October 2021, Palafox offered and sold PGI Global “membership” packages, which he claimed guaranteed investors high returns from PGI Global’s supposed crypto asset and foreign exchange trading and offered members multi-level-marketing-like referral incentives to encourage them to recruit new investors. However, as the complaint alleges, Palafox misappropriated more than $57 million in investor funds to buy Lamborghinis, items from luxury retailers, and for other personal expenses. He also used the majority of the remaining investor funds to pay other investors their purported returns and referral rewards in a Ponzi-like scheme until its collapse in late 2021.

    “As alleged in our complaint, Palafox attracted investors with the allure of guaranteed profits from sophisticated crypto asset and foreign exchange trading, but instead of trading, Palafox bought himself and his family cars, watches, and homes using millions of dollars of investor funds,” said Scott Thompson, Associate Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. “We will continue to investigate and take action against bad actors who take advantage of investors with promises of guaranteed passive income and other lies and deceit.”

    “Palafox used the guise of innovation to lure investors into lining his pockets with millions of dollars while leaving many victims empty-handed,” said Laura D’Allaird, Chief of the Commission’s new Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit. “In reality, his false claims of crypto industry expertise and a supposed AI-powered auto-trading platform were just masking an international securities fraud.”

    The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, charges Palafox with violating the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, conduct-based injunctions preventing Palafox from participating in multi-level-marketing programs involving the offer or sale of securities and offerings of crypto assets bought or sold as a security, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The complaint also names BBMR Threshold LLC, Darvie Mendoza, Marissa Mendoza Palafox, and Linda Ventura as relief defendants and seeks disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest.

    In a parallel action, Palafox was arraigned in U.S. District Court on criminal charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    The SEC’s ongoing investigation is being conducted by Michael Cuff and Polly Hayes of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Assunta Vivolo of the SEC’s Market Abuse Unit. It is being supervised by Ms. D’Allaird and Mr. Thompson. The litigation will be conducted by Spencer Willig and Gregory Bockin of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Eugene Hansen of SEC Headquarters. The Commission appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the IRS.

    The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy directs investors to resources on detecting and avoiding pyramid schemes posing as multi-level marketing programs. Investors can find additional information at Investor.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: BROUSSARD MAN PLEADS GUILTY IN MULTI-STATE VEHICLE THEFT, FIREARM TRAFFICKING, AND IDENTITY THEFT CONSPIRACY IN MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL OPERATION

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Acting United States Attorney April M. Leon announced that Christopher Don Byerley, age 45, of Broussard, Louisiana, pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to conspiracy to transport a stolen motor vehicle; altering, removing and obliterating a vehicle identification number; possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices; conspiracy to trafficking a firearm and receipt of a trafficked firearm; receipt of a trafficked firearm; and possession of an unregistered silencer.

    According to admissions made as part of his guilty plea, between October 2021 and March 2022, Byerley and his co-conspirators, Robert Gregory Brazell, Adrienne Marie King, and Dennis Loyd Sizemore, carried out a coordinated and complex operation extending across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, in which the group stole, and subsequently used or sold the stolen and altered vehicles, including tractors, excavators, forklifts, and a pickup truck, with a total value of over $250,000.

    The scheme involved fraudulent documentation, a “chop shop” for equipment disassembly and tampering, a false business front such as “Hevyquip L.L.C.” to sell stolen equipment, altering   Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), and the use of surveillance evasion tools, such as GPS signal blockers, vehicle plate flippers, and fake driver’s licenses. To further conceal their activities, the conspirators utilized over 400 identities and access devices to evade detection.

    During the investigation, it was determined that Byerley, a convicted felon, used a third party to illegally purchase a firearm, which was later fitted with the unregistered silencer.

    In February 2022, an investigation of a shoplifting incident in the Juban Crossing Shopping Center led Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives to uncover items from a stolen pickup truck being operated by Byerley:

    • A functional, unregistered firearm silencer;
    • A FN Model 509 9mm pistol and ammunition;
    • Documentation detailing parts orders for silencers all in Byerley’s handwriting;
    • Multiple text messages and photographs pointing to intent to traffic firearms and circumvent federal regulations; and
    • Numerous documents, records, emails, text messages and photos that led law enforcement to uncover the conspiracy and far-reaching criminal enterprise.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Leon stated, “These guilty pleas reflect the commitment of our office and federal law enforcement in partnership with our state and local law enforcement agencies to dismantle sophisticated criminal organizations and hold accountable those who pose a significant threat to public safety. We commend the prosecutors and investigators for their hard work and relentless pursuit of the members of this criminal enterprise and are appreciative of their efforts in solving these crimes—even with many attempts at evasion—and returned the stolen equipment to their rightful owners.”

    “The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office is committed to conducting thorough investigations and to working with our local and federal agencies. This investigation is a great example of detectives working a shoplifting incident and that turning into a major investigation across this state and others,” said Livingston Parish Sheriff Jason Ard.

    “Homeland Security Investigations congratulates our law enforcement partners on this important outcome, which was supported by HSI Baton Rouge’s Louisiana Organized Retail Crime Task Force and its partner agencies. The investigations of these sophisticated crimes are most effectively accomplished through the coordination of multiple law enforcement agencies and across several jurisdictional boundaries, such as what occurred in this investigation. HSI remains committed to protecting the American consumer and safeguarding public safety by disrupting criminal networks that drive up prices and endanger our communities,” said Adam Parks, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Louisiana Division, Homeland Security Investigations.

    “The ATF is working closely with local and state police agencies to address firearm trafficking by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, such as this individual,” said ATF New Orleans Special Agent in Charge Joshua Jackson. “This guilty plea sends a message to the community that illegal possession of firearms will be held accountable as we work to keep our neighborhoods safe as a top priority to ensure public safety for ATF.”

    This matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Baton Rouge and Lafayette Field Divisions), Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, Louisiana State Police (Latent Print Section and the Bureau of Identification and Information), Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office, East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Saint Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, Saint Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, Iberia Sheriff’s Department, and Lafayette Police Department.

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lyman E. Thornton III from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana.  To address the firearm trafficking charges, AUSA Thornton was appointed as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Louisiana, where he worked in conjunction with Assistant United States Attorney John Nickel. 

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: St. Louis Rapper Admits Possessing Fentanyl, Gun

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    ST. LOUIS – A St. Louis, Missouri rapper on Tuesday pleaded guilty to drug and gun charges.

    Antonio Harris, 27, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and one count of possession a firearm as a convicted felon. Harris, who performs as “LA4ss,” admitted being caught by police with fentanyl and a firearm.

    On Feb. 16, 2022, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers tried to make a traffic stop on North Broadway in the Baden neighborhood, but Harris sped off in a Toyota Corolla. Officers used spike strips, but Harris continued at a high rate of speed north on Riverview Drive. He passed vehicles on the shoulder and swerved into oncoming traffic before colliding with a retaining wall while attempting to turn into Spring Garden Drive.

    Harris got out and ran, leaving a loaded Glock 9mm pistol in the car, he admitted as part of his plea agreement. While running, he dropped a bag containing 394 capsules of fentanyl and plastic baggies containing more fentanyl, for a total weight of nearly 40 grams of the drug. Harris is a convicted felon and is thus barred from possessing a firearm.

    Harris is scheduled to be sentenced in August. Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime is punishable by at least five years in prison. The felon in possession charge carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

    The case was investigated by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Martin is prosecuting the case.  

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Attorney’s Office Charges Multiple Defendants with Immigration-Related Violations

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)

    CLEVELAND – The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) has announced that federal grand juries in the Northern District of Ohio have returned indictments for the following individuals on charges of immigration-related law violations. These are separate cases and are not related.

    Ana Alvarez-Limonche, 20, a citizen of Venezuela, was indicted on two charges of fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents for having fraudulent permanent resident and Social Security cards. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

    Gildardo Alvarez-Rodriguez, 59, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Sept. 24, 2020. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Franklin Calix-Romero, 34, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person for possessing a Ruger 9mm semiautomatic pistol and 9mm ammunition. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

    Jose Cruz-Aguilar, 41, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 27, 2017. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

    Carlos Garcia-Garcia, 45, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 19, 2005. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Jhofran Andres Laya-Gutierrez, 28, a citizen of Venezuela, has been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer; destruction, alteration, or falsification or records; fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents; and misrepresentation of a Social Security number. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP and the FBI Toledo Field Office.

    Jeyson Martinez, aka, Jayson Martinez-Juarez, 32, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Nov. 23, 2018. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Jose Maximiliano Zepeda-Gutierrez, 45, a citizen of Guatemala, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being July 10, 2019. The defendant was previously convicted in 2018 for conspiracy to transport an undocumented alien. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by the FBI Toledo Field Office.

    An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.  Each defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal records, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation.  In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

    A team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the USAO’s criminal division are prosecuting these cases.

    These cases are part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

    MIL Security OSI