The situation in Afghanistan is appalling. Exactly how appalling, we cannot know unless we are present. As journalists fly in, report from the tarmac or, in one case, from just outside the airport gates as bullets flew, we get a multitude of one-dimensional pictures that create a collage but not a cohesive whole. Stories of abuse are rife but on the other hand so are stories that the Taliban is far from the version of 20 years ago. All we can say is that the situation is extraordinarily complex, dangerous and it's likely to become far, far worse.
In the middle of all of this, a mail arrives. It's headed "Urgent request from Mohammed."
If like me you often have two or more website admin panels open simultaneously, perhaps even in the same browser window, all using the same theme (most likely "Seven") it's easy to get confused.
There's a very simple trick to help avoid confusion.
It sounds very American but the "Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation" is a part of the UK Treasury, effectively the equivalent of the USA's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFSI as against OFAC, then. OFSI is gaining increased attention since the UK left the EU, as the UK begins to develop its own financial sanctions regime.
This case is brought under EU-era law. Importantly, it is also against a FinTech company, a sector widely considered under-regulated and lacking in compliance structures.
It would be easy, after all the negativity from Red Bull and Verstappen to see the Dutchman's first corner crash at the Hungaroring as karma but nothing could be further from the truth; nor could any implication that it was caused by a Mercedes to further undermine his title challenge. The simple fact is that a near-inevitable chaotic start to the race nearly put out half-the field of which Verstaapen was one of the entirely innocent pins in a high-speed game of skittles.
Talk about walking in someone else's footsteps: the founder of an electric vehicles manufacturer is the subject of proceedings issued by the USA's Securities and Exchange Commission in respect of comments he made, especially on social media, about the company, its products and prospects. It's not Tesla: it's Nikola.
Don't blame us - we don't make stuff up, you know.
"Semantic Software Asia Pacific Limited (SSAP), an Australian research and development company based in Sydney, has released the first suite of its Semantic Computing Platform, Semantiro, described as a fundamental building block to achieving a complete cognitive environment."
That's what the company said in a press release so laden with buzzwords that we, honestly, have no idea what it's trying to tell us.
Australian regulators have other concerns and this morning ASIC obtained a Court Order to wind up the company and the appointment of provisional liquidators.
The reasons for the Order should be a warning for those buying mission-critical tech from unproven companies. Semantic was an artificial intelligence development company that based in North Sydney.
In a criminal prosecution brought by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC, the financial regulator, two out of five criminal charges brought against an alleged fraudster were dropped because the witnesses in those cases became "unavailable." The charges related to conducting an unauthorised financial services business and to soliciting moneys which were used improperly.
Nevertheless, the accused has pleaded guilty to the remaining three charges at the door of the court before his trial commenced yesterday.
It's a long and convoluted story across years and jurisdictions as well as various enforcement agencies.
On 16th July 2021, the US Department of the Treasury through its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added to its list of sanctioned persons as part of the USA's continued action relating to legal and regulatory changes made in Hong Kong. They are imposed by Biden under a Trump era Act created to impose sanctions with respect to foreign persons involved in the erosion of certain obligations of China with respect to Hong Kong, and for other purposes."
In two races, four penalties have been awarded against drivers who were on the inside of corners when an opponent made an ill-advised overtaking manoeuvre around the outside and, for his trouble, went off, alleging fault on the part of the driver who had been in front going into the corner.
So now it's clear: if you want to sabotage someone else's race, especially in the melée of the first lap, all you have to do is take a dive. Norris and Russell and, almost karma-like, Perez have all suffered penalties when someone else put themselves in harm's way and then complained about it.
Blotics Ltd., a UK publisher, has agreed a settlement with US regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission arising from the publication of articles about initial coin offerings. The articles were "accessible in the United States." But there's more and the case raises more questions than it answers.
The origins of the SPAC, an acronym that has taken on a life of its own with the actual name falling into disuse, are not recent. In fact, as a concept, it's 300 years old - originating in a time of corporate malfeasance, fraud and abuse of investors.
As a vehicle, then, it's perfectly suited to be recognised by regulators who think they are being progressive.
Oh, and it's a near magical route for the expatriation of funds generated by organised crime i.e. money laundering.
| 
| 
