#Fraud Enforcement Task Force | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 3 months ago

Text

When great changes are afoot, we look for a user manual. There will be new patterns of living and new expectations for the future. The rapidly developing corruption landscape in the United States will be no exception.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s election last November and the accelerated institutional and personnel changes since his inauguration have forced Americans into new political territory. In particular, anti-corruption institutions and norms are unraveling. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered the Justice Department to prioritize cases related to criminal cartels and closed down Task Force KleptoCapture and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative; Trump himself ordered a pause in new investigations or enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for six months.

While those developments focus on U.S. businesses engaging in corruption overseas rather than at home, other anti-corruption norms are also coming under rapid and significant pressure. The Trump administration has fired at least 17 inspectors general—offices installed after the Watergate scandal as an independent check on mismanagement and abuse of power within government agencies—as well as several senior Justice Department employees. The president also issued an executive order that undermined the independence of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, both of which have important roles in detecting and punishing corruption.

For some, these changes go beyond the usual shifts in policy that come with a new administration. They seem to require a new vocabulary. For example, few people had heard of the word kakistocracy (a society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens) until it was the Economist’s 2024 word of the year. Pundits have labeled the tech executives with the best seats at Trump’s inauguration as America’s new oligarchs; in his farewell address to the nation, President Joe Biden issued a warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America.” And in February, Sen. Bernie Sanders deployed a more dire descriptor still when he said the Trump administration was “moving this country very rapidly toward a kleptocracy.” What do these terms mean, both definitionally and in practice? And which, if any, can be accurately said to apply to the United States’ oncoming political order?

The first definition required is that of corruption itself. Corruption is the building block of regimes considered antithetical to Americans and the American tradition yet has been frequently invoked across the political spectrum of late. “I campaigned on the fact that I said government is corrupt—and it is very corrupt,” Trump said in an appearance with advisor Elon Musk at the White House in February. Indeed, rooting out graft in the so-called “deep state” bureaucracy is one of Musk’s stated goals for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set up via executive order in January. Among other accusations, Musk has said his team at DOGE discovered “known fraudsters” receiving payments from the federal government and that some people working in the bureaucracy, including at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), had been taking “kickbacks.”

Few would argue that fraud and waste are entirely absent from federal government spending. Last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion a year to fraud and that agencies had made about $2.7 trillion in improper payments over the last 20 years. The figures are huge, as with any organization spending more than $6 trillion annually. But do the documented instances of fraud in the U.S. government rise to the level of corruption?

While there is no universal definition of corruption, one of the most common, as defined by the advocacy group Transparency International, is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” For Musk to use this term in its proper sense in regards to USAID, for instance, he would have to demonstrate how USAID employees or contractors used the authorities granted to them in order to gain private benefits, such as by taking bribes or gifts in return for granting lucrative contracts. Receiving a duly authorized government paycheck for implementing policies within one’s job description does not count as “abuse of entrusted power” or “private gain” and thus would not qualify as corruption.

There are a variety of flavors of corruption. Currently, the most concerning kind is grand corruption. Grand corruption is when public institutions are co-opted by networks of ruling elites to steal public resources for their own private gain. It involves a wide variety of activities including bribery, extortion, nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, judicial fraud, accounting fraud, electoral fraud, public service fraud, embezzlement, influence peddling, and conflicts of interest.

In dismantling systems that protect against it, there are fears that the Trump administration could be opening the door to grand corruption in the future. Rep. Mark Pocan has criticized Musk’s situation as a special government employee with federal contracts—at least 52 are ongoing, with seven government agencies—as “ripe for corruption” and plans to introduce a bill aimed at banning special government employees like Musk, who gave at least $277 million to support Trump and other Republicans in last year’s election, from obtaining such contracts. In a New York Times op-ed in February, five former Treasury secretaries expressed concern about “political actors” from DOGE gaining access to the U.S. payment system. This access, they wrote, endangered the security of a system previously handled exclusively by nonpartisan civil servants in order to prevent individual or partisan enrichment. (Musk told podcast host Joe Rogan in February that DOGE employees “go through the same vetting process that those federal employees went through.”)

In contrast to grand corruption is the petty kind, which citizens encounter when asked for bribes or other favors in places such as hospitals, schools, and police departments. While pop culture is rife with storylines of corrupt cops and civil servants, such as in The Sopranos, most Americans have not experienced having to slip a little something extra to get their driver’s license renewed or a child registered in the local public school. But, as the old saying goes, a fish rots from the head down. When grand corruption increases, lower-level officials may feel even more emboldened to demand bribes in ways new to many Americans.

Kleptocracy takes corruption—even grand corruption—to a whole new level. There is not one specific definition of kleptocracy beyond that of “rule by thieves.” As with grand corruption, a kleptocracy involves tightly integrated networks of elites in political, business, cultural, social, and criminal institutions engaging in bribery, extortion, and other destructive actions. But additional characteristics make kleptocracy stand out even above grand corruption.

First, the grand corruption in a kleptocracy is systemic, deeply networked, and self-reinforcing. Setting up a complex and highly lucrative corruption scheme is one thing, but transforming institutions to keep multiple streams of grand corruption through multiple networks ongoing for years or decades is a whole different level of kleptocratic wherewithal.

Second, the consequences of a kleptocracy will distort long-term political and socioeconomic outcomes. While grand corruption schemes may amass elites billions of dollars, if those occur in a large enough economy, they may not necessarily impact the average citizen much. In a kleptocracy, the distortions are so massive that average citizens cannot miss the impacts on their lives.

Third, in non-kleptocracies, grand corruption scandals may shock the conscience and grab headlines because they are not the norm. Such grand corruption in a kleptocracy is not an aberration but instead the unifying purpose and core function of the state. The scandals come so fast, so widespread, and so large that many citizens feel powerless to respond.

Key elites—referred to popularly as oligarchs—are instrumental in a kleptocracy. Oligarchy is derived from the ancient Greek words oligoi (“few”) and arkhein (“to rule”). Aristotle described oligarchy as “when men of property have the government in their hands.” Per Aristotle’s definition, to count as an oligarchy, the wealthy must be able to influence the government so to protect their wealth and power at the expense of the larger population.

While the term is most associated with the hugely wealthy insiders who are part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, some scholars argue that those described as Russian “oligarchs” do not technically meet the definition because while these individuals clearly have plenty of money, most do not seem to have much actual influence over domestic or foreign affairs. Scholar Ilya Zaslavskiy instead refers to them as “kremligarchs” to signify their huge wealth but lack of actual political influence.

Democratic kleptocracies offer a different model of political power again. In Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party under Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been able to consolidate control over the parliament, courts, bureaucracy, and the media. Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman has summed up Hungary’s system as an “embrace of nihilistic corruption.” Companies linked to Orban’s family and others in his inner circle receive highly preferential lucrative opportunities for government procurement contracts, for example, while those on the outside find their ability to operate limited. Meanwhile, even though Hungary is in the heart of Europe, the press there is highly curtailed, to the point that one of its last independent radio stations was forced off air in 2021.

All kleptocracies are unique, and an American kleptocracy, were it to eventuate, would function differently from those in places such as Hungary, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or Venezuela. Nonetheless, kleptocracies share common characteristics, and there are signs a uniquely American form is already emerging.

Seeking to categorize how kleptocracy operates in different countries, scholar Michael Johnston has identified four major syndromes of corruption. The United States falls into the bucket of what he calls Influence Markets—the world’s democratic good-governance leaders.

No country considered an Influence Market has ever become a full-fledged kleptocracy. In an Influence Market, petty corruption is rare, and cases of grand corruption can lead to jail time, new legislation, and electoral losses, though there is often significant controversy over what should be considered legitimate lobbying or campaign contributions versus outright corruption. These countries display strong democratic norms, protect personal freedoms, advocate for human rights, and have independent courts and other enforcement agencies. The state is administered through a relatively clean, professional, and apolitical civil service.

The United States is the preeminent Influence Market country in the international system. It boasts the world’s reserve currency and one of its strongest economies and biggest militaries. Anti-corruption institutions and norms—as understood at the time—were written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers or instituted shortly thereafter, including its system of checks and balances, emoluments clauses, Bill of Rights, and the requirements for representatives to live in the districts and states that they represent. In 1977, the United States even became the first country to make it illegal to bribe another country’s politicians, via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which Trump has ordered a pause on enforcing.

There is no historical model for what happens when a great power that is also an Influence Market becomes a kleptocracy. Should the United States fall into kleptocracy, a few winners will benefit greatly. To be sure, inequality is not new, and several studies have shown that social mobility in the United States has been declining for years. Even so, a tilt toward kleptocracy and fewer checks and balances would exacerbate an alarming trend line. In 2023, there were 1,050 billionaires in the United States, with a combined wealth of almost $5 trillion. In the third quarter of 2024, the top 1 percent of Americans held $49.23 trillion in household wealth, while the bottom 50 percent held only $3.89 trillion. Under an American kleptocracy, the number of billionaires would likely grow along with the already disproportionate wealth of the top 1 percent.

In a kleptocracy, preferential policy access and outright grand corruption for oligarchs mean that procurement prices rise, public services are further privatized, and nitpicky fees abound. Thus, more public roads turn into toll roads, and businesses from airlines to hotels to credit cards can pile on the fees and surcharges. The Trump administration’s attempt to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the cessation of its investigative work, is a possible harbinger.

As oligarchs can further avoid taxation, taxes fall more heavily on the poor and middle classes. Tariffs typify this trend, since they are taxes paid primarily by the consumer, not the supplier. Price increases from tariffs on food will hit the poor especially hard; the lowest income quintile of U.S. households spent 33 percent of their after-tax income on food in 2023, compared with the richest quintile, which spent only 8 percent.

Social programs—especially for a nation’s poorest citizens—are increasingly curtailed, underfunded, or cut entirely in a kleptocracy. The recently passed House budget proposes to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy, aiming to cut $2 trillion in spending over 10 years, including $880 billion in cuts to be determined by the House committee that oversees Medicare and Medicaid funding. Recent comments by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, immensely wealthy himself, that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are “wrong” is a further worrying sign. Trump would not be the first Republican president to muse about cutting these programs, but early moves—including the proposal to slash hundreds of Veterans Affairs contracts—suggest that this administration’s cuts may be more deep and widespread than its predecessors’.

Politicized institutions, especially law enforcement, are necessary to keep the kleptocracy going. As former Peruvian dictator Óscar Benavides put it, “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” Venezuelan and Russian companies, for example, know that being on the wrong side of the government brings the tax police, devastating tax bills, and bankruptcy, making the weaponization of the IRS a threat to all. This was something that President Richard Nixon understood when he provided his IRS commissioner an “enemies list” of some 200 Democrats for auditing, with the intent that they would be investigated and some even put in jail. The IRS commissioner had the list locked away rather than conducting the audits. The recent departure of the acting IRS commissioner and the firing of 6,700 probationary workers during tax season, as well as DOGE’s efforts to gain access to IRS and other taxpayer information, are also warning signs of such politicization.

Looking forward, other executive orders and policies, if implemented, could further push the United States toward kleptocracy. Most crucial is Schedule F (now called Schedule Policy/Career), laid out in October 2020 by the first Trump administration. It was rescinded by Biden and then reestablished via an executive order on the first day of Trump’s second term. This executive order allows civil servants to be categorized into an employment grouping with fewer job protections, undermining 150 years of civil service reform. Implementing it would return the United States to the spoils system prevalent in the 19th century.

The result of these various executive orders and directives, questionable personnel choices, a hamstrung Justice Department, undermined independent agencies, and the defunding and defanging of the civil service is that those who want to morph U.S. federal institutions for their own personal benefit are in positions of power to do so. Moreover, the rapid-fire initiation of all of these efforts makes it harder for states, courts, civil society, and journalists to respond effectively; this is former Trump advisor Steve Bannon’s famous edict to “flood the zone with shit” in action.

Journalists in a kleptocracy are further constricted because libel laws may be skewed to make it easier for those in power to mount strategic lawsuits against media, civil society, or even ordinary citizens who might report on malfeasance to silence them. Musk and the administration’s response to reporting that identifies DOGE employees is an early example of this. The narrative can be controlled in other ways, too. While Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s ownership of the Washington Post or Musk’s ownership of X gets the most attention, conservative ownership of local media stations throughout the United States, such as Sinclair’s network of nearly 200, makes them an important means to shape the pro-Trump message. In a globalized world, high quality—and often highbrow—media will remain available to those with the money, time, and willingness to access it. As Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman note in their book Spin Dictators, the availability of this media serves to prove that the regime is not actually that authoritarian while also making scapegoats of globalist elites who read the international, often paywalled, press.

Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited dark money to flow to federal election campaigns, what constitutes “corruption” for legal purposes has been very sharply curtailed. The most disturbing recent decision, however, is Trump v. United States (2024), which has given the president a remarkable amount of immunity so long as his actions are in some way linked to official acts. It also limits what presidential actions can even be investigated. Combined with the ability to pardon those involved in federal cases, Trump and any future president have a great deal of legal leeway to bend the U.S. government to their will.

Trump’s pardon of cryptocurrency cult hero Ross Ulbricht—who ran a darknet drug market and had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole—and the administration’s possible pressure on Romania to allow the departure of Andrew and Tristan Tate—under criminal investigation there for human trafficking and money laundering, among other charges—are ominous signs. When asked, Trump said he knew nothing about Romania’s decision to lift the travel ban. (The fact that Florida’s attorney general has opened an investigation into the recently repatriated brothers, who deny the charges, is more promising.) Trump’s executive orders targeting two law firms, one of which represents former special counsel Jack Smith, further serve to weaken the rule of law.

Despite promises to free up business, kleptocracies must intervene substantially in the economy. After all, one cannot ensure that economic benefits go to favored groups if the market is allowed to do its thing. In a well-governed country, for example, a procurement contract goes to the firm with the best bid and that has a track record of being able to do the work. But in a kleptocracy, most procurement contracts go to those in the right network or who paid the right bribes, not to the most qualified.

The best documented example of kleptocratic state capture of an economy is in South Africa, where a judicial commission found that former President Jacob Zuma and other state officials worked with the Gupta family to ensure that their companies received lucrative contracts with the government and state-owned companies while employing members and friends of Zuma’s family. The massively overpriced contracts sucked tens of billions of dollars out of the economy and left a large hole in the federal budget. Among the detritus of the corruption and rot left over since Zuma’s resignation in 2018 has been the mangling of the country’s electricity grid, which in turn has undermined broader economic growth.

The United States is nowhere near South Africa in this regard. And it has often fallen short of its ideals in the past without surrendering its status as a liberal democracy. Yet Americans can gauge whether they are descending into kleptocracy simply by observing whether their net worth and social network increasingly determine their rights and access to services.

Because the United States was already the most unequal country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, life for the wealthy in a kleptocracy would largely carry on as it has before—or may even improve. They can squat behind their private security and their walled communities. Their children can attend high-quality private schools and can play tennis and soccer at private sports clubs. Medical insurance and health care are already available mostly to those who can pay or who have an employer willing to do so. Some wealthy communities will be able to maintain high-quality policing, fire departments, and other social services. For those who cannot pay or who do not happen to live or work in or near these fortunate suburban ink spots, the crumbs available for public services will continue to diminish, as will public security.

An opposition united against oligarchs is a kleptocracy’s greatest threat, so they must maintain a divide-and-conquer strategy. In the 2024 presidential election, Trump increased his share of Black and Latino voters and barely budged with white voters, leaving some experts to describe polarization as decreasing. But many of Trump’s early decisions seem designed to reinflame polarization. For example, his sweeping pardon of the 1,500-plus people charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol hardly seems geared toward uniting the country. The ongoing purge of military leaders, with some dismissals apparently linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, is further divisive. Particularly notable was the firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., along with the chief of naval operations, vice chief of staff of the Air Force, and the top lawyers for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. Generals have been fired before, including by Presidents Harry Truman and Barack Obama, but in Brown’s case, there was no clear reason or obvious poor performance to point to. In fact, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously questioned if Brown, who is Black, had received his position because of his skin color.

Whether such actions, taken en masse, add up to full-fledged kleptocracy remains to be seen. But what is certain is that kleptocracy is a deliberate strategy rather than a fortuitous opportunity. There is no “accidental kleptocracy.” As a result, dekleptification studies show that the best time to dekleptify a society is whenever that society’s rules and institutions are in flux, which in the United States is now. Normally, a dekleptification window stays open for up to two years, but this American example is moving so fast that there may be only months rather than years to react.

Civil society action through the courts has been the most effective countermove so far. Organizations such as Democracy Forward, a consortium of good-governance civil society groups, have been filing lawsuits on behalf of veterans, teachers, and the rights of average citizens. Likewise, states—especially blue states—have been filing lawsuits, including one alleging that DOGE’s authority granted by Trump is unconstitutional.

People around the world have fought against kleptocratic networks, often successfully. That means there is a trove of dekleptification lessons learned for concerned Americans to adapt as part of developing their own strategies and tactics. USAID’s Dekleptification Guide is considered the best synthesis of how to dekleptify a country; it examined case studies of both successful and unsuccessful dekleptification from around the world to find the most useful strategies. While the document is no longer online, the anti-corruption community is working to make it available to the public again. It is hardly the only guide. Srdja Popovic helped found the group Otpor! in Serbia, which successfully and nonviolently helped bring down President Slobodan Milosevic’s kleptocracy. Since then, Popovic has worked through the Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies to publicize successful nonviolent strategies, too. These are only two of the many global sources available. After decades of Americans trying to tell other countries’ citizens how to fix their governments, it may be time to turn the tables.

As for grand corruption, Americans have their own history of fighting back, including during the Gilded Age. They can look for and then elect committed anti-corruption reformers like Theodore Roosevelt, reinvigorate the muckraking of Ida B. Wells and Ida Tarbell, and reengage in the tactics of sit-ins, protest marches, boycotts, and other acts of resistance. These, after all, have been the hallmark of civil rights movements throughout U.S. history.

10 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 5 months ago

Text

Answers to frequently asked questions:

Q: How will people deal with crime, resolve disputes, reach agreements and set standards if the government and laws are abolished?

A: The main purpose of governments and laws are to keep most of us under control so that we can be efficiently milked, like a herd of cows. With the exception of a small proportion of anti-social people, most of us are able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to the authorities. The legal system we have now puts the full force of the state behind the party that manages to win its favor. Many disputes are already resolved through arbitration and mediation, outside of the courts and the legal system. The laws are written and enforced in such a way that the poor are always held accountable for petty crimes such as writing bad checks to pay for groceries, while the authorities can literally get away with murder.

If allowed to, people will always act to protect themselves from violent criminals. This is an involuntary reflex, like raising your hand to deflect a blow. People may decide to form special, recallable groups who are firmly under community control to perform that task as the need arises, or they may choose to do it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. But the police, courts and government we currently have are only accountable to the people in the most roundabout way, and they have clearly become a threat to our freedom. They are literally out of control. Self perpetuating elites have appointed themselves to perform our civic duties in our behalf. The amount of crime should drop sharply as soon as productive activity becomes less difficult and oppressive, and people begin to have a sense of belonging to a social unit. To protect the rights of unpopular individuals who are guilty of no real crime, it would be necessary for the community to agree that only acts that cause actual harm to others are subject to the justice of the community. Each community can debate the issue of “actual harm” for itself, and people can relocate according to their preference. People would need to work out a fair and open procedure for resolving disputes and for treating predatory individuals. There is the danger of a community oppressing its members, who would lack recourse to existing laws designed to protect them. We would hope that communities would incorporate respect for the rights of individuals into their processes; we do not expect this important value to mysteriously vanish from social consciousness. On the contrary, personal freedom should actually be respected even more than it presently is if we are successful in spreading our ideas more widely. It is hard to imagine an autonomous community expending the same level of resources on coercion that current governments do. There is an unavoidable tension between the good of the community and individual rights, but anarchists do not feel that one must be sacrificed to increase the other.

If written contracts prevented fraud, we would not have “fine print” or a legal profession. In a free society it is of the utmost importance that people show real compassion and fairness in their dealings with others, or else it won’t last very long. Living together in peaceful cooperation is a powerful form of protest against government and police.

Concerning technical standards, these are best agreed upon by the people who do the work and who use the products involved, instead of being decided by corporate officers or government bureaucrats. Many standards are already set by professional associations. If you’ve ever tried to repair an automobile or link computers you understand how necessary, and how lacking, industry-wide standards are. If a product lacks a trusted “seal of approval” from consumer organizations, consumers can avoid it. Educated consumers can influence what is produced and how it is produced if they act together in large numbers.

Q: How will we defend ourselves from invasion by foreign governments without a government?

A: We could have a truly volunteer and community controlled military, concerned strictly with defending our liberty and not with imposing our will on people in foreign countries. If volunteers want to participate in foreign wars, that would be up to them. We would soon find the world a less dangerous place when other societies no longer fear being attacked by our government and when we stop exporting arms for profit. The absence of government does not mean the absence of organization. It means the absence of coercion.

Q: The situations in places like Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia have often been referred to as “anarchy”. Is this accurate?

A: No, these are examples of competing elites struggling against one another for power. The result is chaos. Anarchy is the absence of a controlling elite. A government is the strongest gang of aggressors in a particular area at a particular time. Civil war is what happens when the dominant group is challenged. Anarchy has been a rare occurrence in recent history, since there is usually an elite willing to impose itself whenever it sees the opportunity. Emiliano Zapata, one of the major figures in the Mexican Revolution of 1911–1918, was influenced by anarchist ideas, especially those of the brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magon. He temporarily liberated large parts of Mexico with his army of indian peasants. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, a mostly peasant, anarchist army led by Nestor Makhno temporarily liberated various parts of what is now Ukraine in battles against several different armies; White, Red, Nationalist and foreign. Korean anarchists established an autonomous zone in Shimin province in northern Manchuria between 1929 and 1931, but were crushed by the Japanese army and Chinese/Russian Communists. During the Spanish Civil War and Revolution of 1936, anarchists liberated areas of Aragon, Catalonia and other parts of Spain. They entered into an uneasy, anti-Nationalist alliance with the Republican government, but were pressured and then forced to abandon their gains. They were then persecuted by both Republicans and Nationalists.

Q: Are people really so good that they can live without government?

A: Are people really so good that they can be trusted to direct a government? Governments have killed far more people than all the criminals, bandit gangs and mass murderers in history, who look like hobbyists in comparison. Anarchists consider governments to be a very powerful form of organized crime. Some governments are worse than others, of course, but they all have the potential for committing atrocities.

Q: Don’t anarchists advocate the violent overthrow of the existing authorities?

A: Some anarchists do advocate this, in the hope that people will spontaneously organize themselves once the power of the elite has been broken. However, the contradiction between revolutionary social change and the anarchist ideal of voluntary social relations has always been troubling to some anarchists. In the absence of unanimous opposition to the elite, revolutions always involve coercion against the supporters and sympathizers of the elite, which may be a large proportion of a society. The most coercion is required when a minority attempts to implement radical social change on an unconvinced public. Not only does the old regime need to be defeated without the support of the population, but the new elite must also impose its program on society. The least coercion is required when a revolution is the result of demands made by large sectors of the general public. If the old elite resists, after a brief skirmish it can be pushed aside. Even the government’s own troops cannot be relied upon to suppress a popular revolution, since the soldiers themselves come from the same public. Revolutionary violence occurs when demands for change are ignored or suppressed. But many elites are crafty enough to make concessions which split the public and weaken people’s resolve. Demands for change within the structure of the existing system lead to compromise and ultimately to broader political support for the system. Demands that the state reform itself in a fundamental way are hopeless, because the very nature of the state is to forever expand its power and its autonomy from its subjects.

Revolutionary anarchists argue that violence against tyranny is a duty and that coercion in the name of a better world is justified. They argue that it is very unlikely that many people, if given the choice, would choose to remain slaves. But after the emancipation of the slaves in the U.S. and of the peasants in Russia, many did just that, and instead of fleeing their masters, remained employed on the same estates. This is why some anarchists prefer a strategy of working to transform society gradually, through education and self organization, so that people will be less and less dependent on employers and the government, and more and more able to organize themselves in non-coercive ways. This point of view sees the current social system continuing mainly due to the absence of practical alternatives and to the comfort of inertia. Most of us are compelled to sell our labor to capitalist employers since workers’ and consumers’ cooperatives aren’t widely established. Likewise, if people hear someone breaking into a neighbor’s house, they call the police, since there are no neighborhood based organizations to deal with crime. With an evolutionary strategy, “the new society is built within the shell of the old,” which makes for a slow, but smooth, transition. The revolutionary strategy,which promises quicker results, would leave a dangerous vacuum during the period immediately following the revolution, when most revolutions are defeated or else lapse back into a modified version of the old system. Unless a large majority of the population actively supports anarchism, coercion will likely be necessary to abolish the old social order, since people would not yet be convinced that this is desirable. The political struggle, convincing people of the need for change in an anarchist direction, must be won before the old order can be successfully abolished.

Revolutionaries will argue that any significant gradual efforts will be violently suppressed. Perhaps, but if the gradual efforts involve no violence or coercion, it would be politically risky for the government to suppress them. They would have to crack down on people’s liberties to such an extent that they would be illustrating to the public exactly the point we are trying to make. We risk less by trying persuasion, including our ideals. There are also practical reasons to avoid the use of violence (with the possible exception of self-defense). The party that resorts to violence first is almost always blamed by the public for causing the conflict. A violent attack on the government would give it another excuse to justify its own existence, the excuse it would need to eliminate us. Armed struggle encourages the formation of a conspiratorial directing elite, which may not be controlled by its supporters (as Fidel Castro said recently, “Revolutionaries do not resign”). Successful armed struggle relies on the use of treachery and violence, and these strategies may carry over even after the original enemy is defeated. And victory does not go to the most worthy, but to the most powerful. Some anarchists simply believe that violence and coercion are morally wrong, and would not use these means, even if there were hope of achieving the desired end.

Historically, violent revolution has achieved modest results at a staggering cost in death and suffering. France, Mexico, the U.S., Russia, China and Cuba have all experienced “successful” revolutions, yet these societies are not substantially freer nor is the working class substantially better off than in Great Britain, Sweden or Canada. But, you may protest, these were not true social revolutions. Conceded. But true social revolutions require the conscious, enthusiastic support of the general public. This support can only be won on the political or educational front and not on the military front. Once there is popular support for anarchist ideas, the only force required will be to disband any government forces which refuse to disperse. You can’t win the public’s support militarily. You can only frighten people into passivity or rouse them to lash out in a confused, unorganized manner. The case for revolution directed by a vanguard group or party on behalf of the oppressed requires us to argue that the public has either been brainwashed, that they are too ignorant to understand their own self interest, or that they have been beaten into passivity. If any combination of these are true, what good will it do to use armed struggle on their behalf, if they do not consciously support social change? They will either fight against us or passively watch us die. Com-plex, voluntary, and cooperative social arrangements are unlikely to appear spontaneously. As the anarchists in Spain discovered during the social revolution and civil war there in the 1930’s, you cannot direct society and not direct society at the same time. If people do not organize themselves, they will either flounder in chaos and be unable to resist the forces of reaction, or they will allow themselves to be led by politicians. Significant numbers of workers did organize themselves in Spain, but the working class as a whole was not able to achieve the level of self organization necessary for it to do away with the leadership of the revolutionary parties. There can be no revolutionary government that serves anarchist purposes or which can lead to anarchy. The only way to avoid the creation of a new elite is if the mass of society is consciously aware of what it is trying to accomplish.

As the anonymous authors of “You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship” pointed out, “The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.”[3] Alexander Berkman wrote, “As [people’s] minds broaden and develop, as they advance to new ideas and lose faith in their former beliefs, institutions begin to change and are ultimately done away with. The people grow to understand that their former views were false, and that they were not truth, but prejudice and superstition.... The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not a sudden happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don’t change suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower.... It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they attempt to do so and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution becomes revolution. Bear in mind, then, that evolution and revolution are not two separate and distinct things. Still less are they opposites as some people wrongly believe. Revolution is merely the boiling point of evolution. Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot “make” a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: how quickly it will come to the boiling point will depend on how strong the fire is. The economic and political conditions of a country are the fire under the evolutionary pot. The worse the oppression, the greater the dissatisfaction of the people, the stronger the flame.... But pressure from above, though hastening revolution, may also cause its failure, because such a revolution is apt to break out before the evolutionary process has been sufficiently advanced. Coming prematurely, as it were, it will fizzle out in mere rebelling; that is, without clear, conscious aim and purpose.”[4] The recent riots in Los Angeles are an example of mere rebelling, without a conscious aim beyond venting anger and looting. The uprising in Chiapas, Mexico is an example of a much more developed, but still premature, rebellion. Both of these rebellions were quickly isolated and contained in the absence of widespread popular support. We must work to build the functioning parts of a new society, while maintaining a clear vision of our alternatives. We must not be co-opted by the State on the one hand, nor recklessly overestimate our support on the other. Through education, interaction, and example we can work to gradually rid humanity of statism, nationalism, deprivation, racism, sexism, violence, child and animal abuse, and all the other evils humanity is afflicted with. But we have to get our own act together if we expect people to take us seriously.

In the event that the existing order collapses on its own, people would be free to organize themselves into groups regardless of what the majority is doing. As long as a group is large enough to be economically viable and to defend its autonomy, even relatively small groups could set up new social relations. The issue of violence only arises because of the ruthless suppression of secessionist movements by the world’s governments.

Q: What if some people really do prefer having a government?

A: As long as the relationships are strictly voluntary, and not enforced by poverty or force, it would be hard for anarchists to justify suppressing any voluntary association, just as it would be difficult to justify suppressing religions, superstitions or vices. Under what conditions is the use of force justified? Only in response to the prior use of force. But governments, by definition, are institutions of coercion and control, so only if a government supported itself through voluntary donations, or enforced its will by merely asking for compliance, could it conceivably function without coercion, in which case it would not really be a government at all.

“Panarchy” is the name for a society made up of a multitude of diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a particular type of government could do so. Why won’t the statists allow us this same freedom today? Panarchy should appeal to everyone, because as it is now, no one really gets what they want. We all must live under a mish-mash of strictly enforced rules that come out of battles fought on the elite turf of the official political process. Panarchy is letting people “do their own thing”.

Q: How do you propose to achieve anarchist social relations?

A: We argue that the proper course for the anarchist movement is to concentrate its efforts on two tasks: educating the public and organizing our own social relations here and now as much as possible. Our objective should not be to overthrow the existing social relations, because those social relations are not viewed as intolerable by most of the public. We need to inform people about our ideas and demonstrate to them that anarchist social relations can actually function. Gustav Landauer suggested that when people saw functioning villages based on voluntary cooperation, the public’s envy would result in more and more villages being formed. These voluntary organizations will eventually render the old, coercive institutions useless, and they will be done away with or rendered powerless, like the monarchy and the Church have been in the past. By combining our efforts with other non-statists in a panarchist federation, we could greatly hasten the pace of non-coercive social change.

Q: Is anarchy a goal that can actually be reached, or is it only an ideal to be approximated?

A: If you approximate your ideal well enough, eventually you reach your goal.

[1] “For Socialism” by Gustav Landauer, p. 140, Telos Press, St. Louis, 1978 (English translation). Originally published in 1911.

[2] “Evolution and Revolution” by Elisee Reclus, p. 16, Kropotkin’s Lighthouse Publications reprint of the 7th edition published by William Reeves. No dates of publication or reprint given.

[3] “You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship”, p. 20, 1989 See Sharp Press reprint of a pamphlet originally published by anonymous Australian anarchists in 1979.

[4] “ABC of Anarchism” also known as “What is Communist Anarchism” by Alexander Berkman, p. 36–38, 1977 Freedom Press reprint of a book first published by the Vanguard Press in 1929.

7 notes · View notes

darkmaga-returns · 7 months ago

Text

by Tyler Durden

The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) division, the armed enforcement wing of the IRS tasked with combating financial crimes, has expanded its workforce by nearly 11 percent, bringing staffing levels to their highest in nearly a decade and boosting the division’s conviction rate to 90 percent, according to the IRS-CI’s latest annual report.

As Tom Ozimek reports, via The Epoch Times, the fiscal year 2024 report, released on Dec. 5, outlines a year of intensified enforcement for the IRS-CI, which serves as the tax agency’s law enforcement branch that focuses on tax violations that cross into criminal territory.

The report shows that the division achieved several firsts over the past year, including the first sentencing for syndicated conservation easement schemes, the first cryptocurrency tax fraud indictment, and a record-setting financial settlement with Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, for anti-money laundering violations.

IRS-CI special agents, who are authorized to carry guns and use lethal force, now number 2,290 after a hiring spree added 146 employees to its ranks over the fiscal year. The division’s overall workforce expansion is the largest in nearly a decade, bringing total headcount to 3,474 employees. Between 2010 and 2020, the division’s staffing numbers fell from 4,017 to 2,858.

IRS-CI Chief Guy Ficco said in the report that the demands on the division’s workforce have increased as “criminals utilize new venues, revise their techniques, and use emerging technologies to facilitate financial crimes.”

7 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months ago

Text

Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse:

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that leadership at the Department of Justice has reassigned “about a dozen senior career attorneys” in the Civil Rights Division to perform perfunctory tasks usually assigned to lower level attorneys, like responding to FOIA requests. Three senior career attorneys who managed offices that handled cases involving excessive force and other abuses by police, voting rights, and the rights of people with disabilities were among the casualties of this wave of efforts by the Trump administration to disrupt the work done in the Civil Rights Division, which is frequently referred to as the crown jewel of the Justice Department. The changes have not been publicly announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi or her staff, according to Reuters. According to other reporting, a series of memos have radically altered the mission of key sections in the Division. For instance, one for the voting section, “barely mentions the Voting Rights Act and instead says the section will focus on preventing voter fraud – which is exceedingly rare – and helping states find noncitizens on their voter rolls (noncitizen voting is also exceedingly rare).” The memo for the Housing and Civil Enforcement section neglects to mention the Fair Housing Act, which has protected people from discrimination since it was passed in 1968 and is a centerpiece of the Division’s work—but apparently, no longer. Career employees in the Division seem shell-shocked, many of them leaving or preparing to, in hopes they will be able to continue at least some of the work that matters to them so deeply outside of government, since it seems to no longer be possible on the inside. The Civil Rights Division was created as a result of Congress’ passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Division enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and other factors. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expanded the Division’s jurisdiction to enforce anti-discrimination laws aimed at integrating public facilities, public accommodations, employment, and schools. It also enforces federal civil rights laws that protect people’s rights to be free of discrimination in employment, housing, education, voting, and access to public accommodations. In addition, it prosecutes violations of civil rights crimes like police use of excessive force and hate crimes. Its attorneys travel all across the country, frequently partnering with United States Attorneys’ offices to protect Americans’ civil and constitutional rights.

The Division really is the crown jewel of the Department; the work its people do makes us a better country in very real ways. Losing it is unthinkable. Just off the top of my head, some of the work my office did with them included protecting the rights of diabetic school children, making sure voters in wheelchairs could access their polling places, and prosecuting police use of excessive force that left people badly injured. We worked on a string of church fires, a cross burned at the home of an interracial couple, helping a community process the revelation that several police officers were members of a successor group to the Ku Klux Klan. Now, much of that will be lost.

The Division’s website (catch it while you can) currently explains that “Congress created the Civil Rights Division in 1957 to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, military status and national origin.” Trump’s pick to run the Civil Rights Division is Harmeet Dhillon, an attorney with a history of attacking voting rights. She was confirmed on a 52-45 vote, with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski the only Republican vote against her. According to Marc Elias, she has worked on lawsuits challenging laws that make it easier for more people to vote and defended against efforts to disqualify Trump from appearing on several states’ ballots in 2024. None of that is encouraging for people who believe protecting the right to vote is a critical piece of the Civil Rights Division’s work.

Having far-right culture warrior zealot Harmeet Dhillon lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is a slap in the face to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s legacy.

#US Department of Justice #DOJ Civil Rights Division #Trump Administration II #Pam Bondi #Civil Rights Act of 1957 #Civil Rights Act #Harmeet Dhillon

4 notes · View notes

ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly · 5 months ago

Text

By Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman

The new leadership of the Justice Department moved swiftly on multiple fronts Wednesday to assert control over the F.B.I. and marshal the power of federal law enforcement to investigate those who had investigated President Trump.

Pam Bondi, who was sworn in as attorney general in an Oval Office ceremony, signed a memo creating a working group to review the “weaponization” of the criminal justice system by officials who had brought criminal charges or civil suits against Mr. Trump. It was one of 14 directives that shuttered department task forces, restored the federal death penalty and, above all else, mandated obedience to Mr. Trump’s agenda.

Ms. Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, arrived at headquarters, known as Main Justice, at a moment of profound and disruptive conflict between the department and its historically independent and powerful investigative arm, the F.B.I.

Hours earlier, the department’s No. 2 official, Emil Bove, escalated his conflict with the acting director of the F.B.I., Brian Driscoll, and his deputy, Robert C. Kissane. He accused them of “insubordination” after they resisted his efforts to identify agents who had investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

Ms. Bondi’s first day on the job appeared to have been modeled on Mr. Trump’s, an intense blizzard of policy pronouncements intended to reverse Biden-era policies in a single swoop, coupled with accusations about the weaponization of the department under Democratic control.

Buried in the pile of memos were three significant national security actions, which could weaken efforts to combat foreign influence in U.S. elections, the economy and infrastructure: the disbanding of a foreign influence task force, new limitations on prosecutions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the shutdown of a foreign corporate enforcement unit.

The attorney general, who had promised at her confirmation hearing last month that “politics will not play a part” in her investigative decisions, said she planned to scrutinize the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who had brought the first criminal case against a president over a hush money payment to a porn star; the former special counsel Jack Smith, who had investigated Mr. Trump’s handling of classified records and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election; and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, whose civil fraud case against Mr. Trump had accused him of inflating the value of his properties.

Little information was given about the new working group’s mandate, members or powers — or how it squared with another memo she signed on Wednesday ending political “weaponization” at the department. It will be overseen by Ms. Bondi, her top aides, and the political leadership of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington and the department’s repurposed civil rights division.

“No one who has acted with a righteous spirit and just intentions has any cause for concern,” the working-group memo said.

Mr. Bove’s standoff with the acting F.B.I. leadership began on Friday, when he instructed the bureau to notify more than a half-dozen high-ranking career officials that they faced termination and asked for a list of all agents and F.B.I. staff assigned to work on investigations relating to the Jan. 6 assault. Mr. Bove added that the information would kick off a review process to determine whether any additional action was necessary.

Former Justice Department officials said that Mr. Bove’s request was unusual. In virtually all instances, allegations of F.B.I. misconduct are referred to the Justice Department’s inspector general, an independent watchdog.

A day later, bureau employees received a remarkable questionnaire, asking them to detail any role they had in investigating and prosecuting Jan. 6 rioters.

Over the weekend, Mr. Kissane, seeking to allay the concerns of employees that any identifying information would put them in the Justice Department’s cross hairs, said that while the bureau did not know what the department intended to do with the data, the request was lawful.

On Wednesday, in a memo to the entire bureau, Mr. Bove said that the repeated failure of Mr. Driscoll and Mr. Kissane to provide the names of F.B.I. employees on the “core team” that had prosecuted the rioters forced him to ask for a broader list of those who had investigated the Capitol attack.

The broadside came at a time of deepening crisis in the F.B.I. Even before Mr. Trump’s nominee to lead the bureau, Kash Patel, has been confirmed, the president’s team has pushed to identify and possibly purge nonpartisan career employees — from supervisors to line agents to analysts — involved in the Jan. 6 investigations.

Mr. Bove’s accusation of insubordination is likely to exacerbate the mistrust between the F.B.I. and Justice Department that erupted into the open last week with Mr. Bove’s demand for the names of employees who had been involved in the Jan. 6 cases, the largest investigation in Justice Department history.

Bureau employees have rallied around the acting leaders, both of whom have told associates that they intend to go down fighting even at the cost of their jobs. Mr. Driscoll, 45, is not eligible for retirement.

In his memo on Wednesday, which was viewed by The New York Times, Mr. Bove said that he had initially sought a narrower group of names. “The purpose of the requests was to permit the Justice Department to conduct a review of those particular agents’ conduct” to determine if they had committed ethical or procedural breaches, he wrote.

“F.B.I. acting leadership refused to comply,” he added.

The “insubordination,” he said, forced the department to issue a far-reaching memo to all bureau employees requesting that they provide details about their involvement in the cases, which could include 5,000 of the department’s 38,000 employees.

Mr. Bove assured employees that no one would lose their job for following orders. “Let me be clear: No F.B.I. employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner with respect to Jan. 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties,” he said.

Mr. Bove said the bureau, whose work force leans politically conservative, had let politics interfere with its work as he attacked the integrity of the acting leaders of the bureau. He made the accusations without citing evidence.

“There is no honor in the ongoing efforts to distort that simple truth or protect culpable actors from scrutiny on these issues, which have politicized the bureau, harmed its credibility and distracted the public from the excellent work being done every day,” he wrote.

The letter raises questions about why Mr. Bove did not fire the acting leaders of the bureau and why his original request was not in writing.

So far, the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has remained silent as tensions escalate between its political leadership and nonpartisan career officials at the bureau. President Trump fired as many as 17 inspectors general last weekbut spared Mr. Horowitz because of his previous work investigating the F.B.I.

Neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. immediately responded to a request for comment.

The policy memos Ms. Bondi signed were intended to chart the course laid out by Mr. Trump and his advisers. They included a rollback of environmental regulations, a threat to withhold department funding to sanctuary cities that obstruct immigration enforcement, a blueprint for enforcing Mr. Trump’s nullification of diversity, equity and inclusion programs and a task force to study President Biden’s commutation of inmates on death row.

Ms. Bondi also vowed to take action against officials who “substitute their personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election,” an admonition that mirrored Mr. Bove’s message to the F.B.I.

The day began with fanfare. Mr. Trump swore in Ms. Bondi, a political ally who had worked for his nonprofit legal group, during a ceremony in the Oval Office that underscored her gratitude and fealty to the president.

“I’ve known you for many years,” she said, “and I will not let you down.”

Mr. Trump, for his part, predicted Ms. Bondi would do her job in a nonpartisan way — mostly.

“I know I’m supposed to say, ‘She’s going to be totally impartial with respect to Democrats,’ and I think she will be as impartial as a person can be,” he said.

2 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 5 months ago

Text

(AP) — A Florida police officer has been sentenced to more than 17 years behind bars after pleading guilty to stealing drugs, cash and firearms from federal investigations and admitting that he once went so far as to swap cocaine seized by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration with a fake kilo made from a 3D printer.

James Hickox’s sentence, handed down Monday in Jacksonville federal court, is the stiffest yet imposed against more than 20 DEA agents and task force officers charged in recent years with crimes ranging from perjury and assault to wire fraud and money laundering on behalf of the same drug cartels the DEA is charged with fighting.

Hickox, a sergeant with the Nassau County Sheriff’s Office, was arrested in 2023 along with Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Joshua Earrey on charges of possession with intent to sell drugs. Both had been assigned to a DEA-led task force in Jacksonville.

As part of his plea agreement, Hickox admitted to receiving more than $420,000 for routinely stealing and selling marijuana, cocaine and other drugs seized as part of DEA operations and then falsely claiming the evidence had been destroyed following normal procedure.

Read: Man in Florida on work visa arrested with 15 pounds of meth, deputies say

He also confessed that in 2022, he swapped a kilogram of cocaine seized by the DEA with a brick made from a 3D printer sprinkled with real cocaine to make it look legitimate. Hickox said he then gave the real cocaine to a Jacksonville drug trafficker who sold it for around $20,000. About half that amount was paid to Hickox.

Hickox’s father said the stress of his work for the DEA, dealing with criminal informants on a daily basis and being surrounded by large amounts of cash and drugs, contributed to his son’s descent into criminality. He said the DEA needs to provide mental health counseling to properly vet its workforce and prevent other criminals from abusing the public’s trust.

“They have to live two lives,” his father, James Lee Hickox, told WJXT television in Jacksonville. “You’re out slinging dope for the DEA and then you go home and be a family man.”

Read: Florida deputy planned to smuggle drugs aboard cruise ship inside candy bag, report claims

Hickox, 38, also said he gave around 550 pounds of marijuana to one informant, receiving about $200 to $400 for every pound sold.

On another occasion, according to the plea agreement, he and Earrey staged a fake traffic stop to seize what they thought were 13 pounds of fentanyl arriving from another state.

When authorities searched Hickox’s house, they found cocaine, methamphetamine pills, and a powdery substance containing fentanyl, as well as several firearms that had been seized during law enforcement operations. The narcotics were found in a converted garage labeled “Gator’s Man Cave.”

Hickox, in his plea agreement, also admitted to routinely breaking into DEA evidence bags, stealing thousands of dollars in cash and then resealing the bags, or repacking the currency into another heat-sealed bag with forged signatures, to cover his tracks.

“Law enforcement officers who operate as though they are above the law betray the badge and the citizens they swore to protect,” FBI Jacksonville Special Agent in Charge Kristin Rehler said in a statement.

Attorneys representing Hickox did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Earrey is scheduled to be sentenced in April.

#nunyas news

2 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 8 months ago

Text

THESE are the "enemy within"! White, male, radicalized, violent Republicans.

From the AJC::

Man who threatened to kill Democratic election officials pleads guilty

By COLLEEN SLEVIN – Associated Press

Updated 17 hours ago

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado man repeatedly made online threats about killing the top elections officials in his state and Arizona — both Democrats — as well as a judge and law enforcement agents, according to a guilty plea he entered Wednesday.

Teak Ty Brockbank, 45, acknowledged to a federal judge in Denver that his comments were made “out of fear, hate and anger,” as he sat dressed in a khaki jail uniform before pleading guilty to one count of transmitting interstate threats. He faces up to five years in prison when he’s sentenced on Feb. 3.

Brockbank’s case is the 16th conviction secured by the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force, which Attorney General Merrick Garland formed in 2021 to combat the rise of threats targeting the election community.

"As we approach Election Day, the Justice Department’s warning remains clear: anyone who illegally threatens an election worker, official, or volunteer will face the consequences,” Garland said in a statement.

Brockbank did not elaborate Wednesday on the threats he made, and court documents outlining the plea agreement were not immediately made public. His lawyer Thomas Ward declined to comment after the hearing.

However, the U.S. Attorney's Office for Colorado said in statement that the plea agreement included the threats Brockbank made against the election officials — identified in evidence as Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and former Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, now the state's governor.

Griswold has been outspoken nationally on elections security and has received threats in the past over her insistence that the 2020 election was secure. Her office says she has gotten more frequent and more violent threats since September 2023, when a group of voters filed a lawsuit attempting to remove former President Donald Trump from Colorado's primary ballot.

“I refuse to be intimidated and will continue to make sure every eligible Republican, Democrat, and Unaffiliated voter can make their voices heard in our elections,” Griswold said in a statement issued after Brockbank’s plea.

Investigators say Brockbank began to express the view that violence against public officials was necessary in late 2021. According to a detention motion, Brockbank told investigators after his arrest that he's not a "vigilante" and hoped his posts would simply "wake people up." He has been jailed since his Aug. 23 arrest in Cortez, Colorado.

Brockbank criticized the government's response to Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk convicted this year for allowing a breach of her election system inspired by false claims about election fraud in the 2020 presidential race, according to court documents. He also was upset in December 2023 after a divided Colorado Supreme Court removed Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot.

In one social media post in August 2022, referring to Griswold and Hobbs, Brockbank said: “Once those people start getting put to death then the rest will melt like snowflakes and turn on each other,” according to copies of the threats included in court documents. In September 2021, Brockbank said Griswold needed to “hang by the neck till she is Dead Dead Dead,” saying he and other “every day people” needed to hold her and others accountable, prosecutors said.

Brockbank also posted in October 2021 that he could use his rifle to “put a bullet” in the head of a state judge who had overseen Brockbank's probation for his fourth conviction for driving under the influence, under the plea agreement, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors say Brockbank also acknowledged posting in July 2022 that he would shoot without warning any federal agent who showed up at his house. Prosecutors earlier said in court documents that a half dozen firearms were found in his home after his arrest, including a loaded one near his front door, even though he can't legally possess firearms due to a felony conviction of attempted theft by receiving stolen property in Utah in 2002.

The investigation was launched in August 2022 after Griswold's office notified federal authorities of posts made on Gab and Rumble, an alternative video-sharing platform that has been criticized for allowing and sometimes promoting far-right extremism, according to court documents.

And although Brockbank only pled guilty for threats made between September 2021 and August 2022, prosecutors say he's made more since then.

In December 2023, after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump should not appear on the state's primary ballot, Brockbank allegedly told his stepfather in a text that he was adding the four judges who backed removing Trump to "my list." The U.S. Supreme Court later restored Trump to the ballot.

And this July, prosecutors say, Brockbank continued to threaten Griswold because her office triggered the investigation of Peters by notifying authorities about the data breach in 2021.

Peters was sentenced to nearly nine years behind bars this month for allowing access to the county's election system to a man affiliated with My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell — a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election. Authorities investigated separate threats made against her trial judge, Matthew Barrett. Most of the messages appear to have been strongly worded opinions but none appeared to rise to the level of a crime, Mesa County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Wendy Likes said Tuesday.

In 2022, a Nebraska man pleaded guilty to making death threats against Griswold in what officials said was the first such plea obtained by the Election Threats Task Force.

The Justice Department task force's longest sentences so far — 3.5 years in prison — were handed down in separate cases involving election officials in Arizona. In one case, a man who advocated for “a mass shooting of poll workers,” posted threatening statements in November 2022 about two Maricopa County officials and their children, prosecutors said.

In the other, a Massachusetts man pleaded guilty to sending a bomb threat in February 2021 to an election official in the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

Another man was sentenced on Monday to 30 months in prison for sending threatening messages to an Maricopa County Elections Instagram account.

___

Art by Ward Sutton

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

#AJC #death threats #MAGA terrorism

4 notes · View notes

reyaint · 7 months ago

Text

law and order of HAIQIN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

date: november 24, 2024

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law and Order of Haiqin

Law Enforcement

National Police Force

The National Police Force serves as the backbone of domestic law enforcement. They are responsible for ensuring public order, investigating crimes, and maintaining peace within Haiqin’s borders. The police operate within a decentralized framework, with local departments serving regions across the nation. However, their operations are coordinated through a central regulatory body that ensures a unified national standard.

Key Roles:

General crime investigation (theft, assault, fraud)

Civil disturbances (riots, protests)

Traffic management and public safety

Community outreach programs aimed at crime prevention

Structure & Roles:

The National Police operate with a decentralized approach, allowing regional departments to address localized issues effectively while being guided by overarching policies from a central authority.

Community Policing:

Officers engage with communities to build trust, emphasizing de-escalation techniques and conflict resolution. Regular outreach programs promote collaboration with local leaders to maintain public order. National Police Forces are deeply integrated within the communities they serve. Officers often live in the neighborhoods they patrol, building relationships with citizens and gathering intelligence informally. The emphasis on community policing helps foster trust and prevent crime before it escalates.

Special Units:

Task forces handle specialized areas, such as narcotics, cybercrime, and environmental protection, reflecting Haiqin’s prioritization of sustainable development and technological safety.

Surveillance:

National police utilize advanced surveillance tools, such as drones, public security cameras, and AI-driven analytics, to monitor urban and rural areas. This technological edge allows law enforcement to respond quickly to potential crimes or emergencies.

Military Police

Military police are tasked with maintaining order in areas of high strategic value, such as military bases, border towns, and government buildings. They play a crucial role in securing national interests and assisting civil law enforcement when national security is at risk.

Dual Role:

Serving as a bridge between military and civilian law enforcement, the Military Police handle sensitive cases, such as smuggling, terrorism, and border security.

Key Roles:

Ensuring the protection of state assets and infrastructure

Managing the security of sensitive governmental or military operations

Assisting in the suppression of organized crime that poses national security threats (terrorism, smuggling, etc.)

Deployment:

Often stationed in politically volatile regions or high-crime zones, their presence reinforces the authority of the state.

Coordination:

They frequently collaborate with the National Police on joint operations, especially during emergencies or national crises.

National Security Focus:

Military Police are often deployed in high-risk situations involving domestic and international security concerns. They act swiftly in situations involving national security threats.

Royal Guard

The Royal Guard is an elite military unit dedicated to the protection of the royal family and the highest levels of government officials. Formed during the revolutionary period, the Royal Guard has since evolved into an important symbol of loyalty, power, and prestige.

Historical Legacy:

Established during King Katalies Vasilios's reign, the Royal Guard embodies national pride. Their responsibilities extend beyond mere protection, often acting as ceremonial figures in national events.

Modern Role:

While their primary duty is protecting the royal family and key officials, they are occasionally called upon during high-profile investigations involving treason or threats to the monarchy.

Key Roles:

Protecting the royal family and key government officials

Providing ceremonial guard duties at major events

Acting as the final line of defense in times of political instability or threat to the monarchy

Political Influence:

While primarily a protective unit, the Royal Guard also has a role in monitoring political stability. Their presence is often seen at major political gatherings or when the monarchy’s security is deemed at risk.

Training:

Renowned for their discipline, members undergo extensive psychological, tactical, and strategic training, making them elite enforcers of law and order. The Royal Guard undergoes extensive training in combat, strategy, and loyalty. Members are selected from the best military officers and undergo rigorous psychological and physical tests to ensure their devotion to the crown.

Judicial System

Structure of the Judiciary

The judicial system in Haiqin integrates both traditional and modern legal principles, operating under a Parliamentary Monarchy where the royals share power with elected officials. The system reflects the country's desire for fairness while acknowledging the role of monarchy and nobility.

Legal Procedures

Trials and Justice: Trials in Haiqin are typically open, with public hearings for most cases. The concept of fairness and impartiality is central, though certain cases involving royal figures may be conducted in private.

Punishments: In Haiqin, justice often incorporates both punitive and rehabilitative measures. While crimes such as theft or assault may lead to fines and rehabilitation, more serious offenses, including treason or murder, can result in imprisonment, exile, or execution. The overarching aim is not just to punish offenders but to reintegrate them into society where possible.

Judiciary

Judges and Councils: While most cases are handled by judges specializing in specific areas of law, councils are convened for high-profile cases such as treason, royal disputes, or issues of national security. These councils include legal experts, government officials, and occasionally members of the royal family.

Community Involvement: For less serious cases or regional disputes, community councils may be employed to resolve matters. These councils are often composed of respected local citizens, and their decisions are respected by the population. This practice stems from Haiqin’s traditional values of community-based justice.

Checks and Balances

Parliamentary Influence: The judiciary operates independently but is balanced by parliamentary oversight. Laws and rulings must align with constitutional principles established during King Neroisn’s reforms.

Nobility and Influence: While the constitution aims for equality under the law, higher nobility families still hold subtle influence, especially in regional matters. Efforts to reduce this influence have gained momentum in recent years.

Surveillance and Security

Haiqin employs cutting-edge surveillance technology to maintain public order and safety. These measures, while extensive, are defended as essential to protecting citizens and preventing crime.

Public Safety Measures

Drones and AI Surveillance: Public areas are equipped with AI-driven systems that identify potential threats, analyze crowd behavior, and track criminal activity. These technologies are especially prevalent in cities like Stellis and Nirin.

Privacy Concerns: Although these measures have reduced crime, critics argue that excessive surveillance infringes on personal freedoms. Activist groups advocate for stricter oversight of governmental data collection.

Cybersecurity

Digital Threat Prevention: A specialized Cybersecurity Agency works to counter cybercrimes, protect government and private data, and ensure safe digital interactions for citizens.

Citizen Protection: The agency also educates the public on cyber safety and monitors financial fraud, ensuring technological advancements do not become avenues for exploitation.

Crime Rates & Types of Crime

In recent years, Haiqin has maintained a relatively low crime rate, thanks in part to its robust policing system and advanced surveillance technologies. The most common types of crime tend to be:

Property Crimes: Theft and burglary, often driven by economic disparity in urban regions.

Environmental Violations: Due to the country's emphasis on environmental protection, illegal pollution or over-harvesting of resources is considered a severe offense.

Cybercrimes: With its advancements in technology, cyber-attacks and information theft are becoming more prevalent.

Petty theft and property crimes are fairly common in Haiqin, often arising from economic disparities. Environmental violations, such as illegal logging or pollution, are harshly penalized given the nation’s commitment to environmental preservation. With the rise of technology, cybercrimes such as hacking and data theft are becoming more frequent, prompting new legislation and surveillance systems to combat these issues. (society)

Punishments

Punishments in Haiqin vary based on the severity of the crime:

Fines and Rehabilitation: For minor offenses, particularly property crimes or environmental violations, fines and mandatory rehabilitation programs are the standard punishment. There is an emphasis on restorative justice, where criminals must make amends to the victim or the community.

Prison: Serious offenders are incarcerated in high-security prisons. However, the prison system focuses on reform, providing inmates with education and skills training to help reintegrate into society.

Exile: For crimes such as high treason or crimes against the state, exile is a traditional punishment. Those exiled are stripped of citizenship and sent to remote islands or countries with no diplomatic relations with Haiqin.

Execution: Reserved for the gravest offenses, such as terrorism or multiple counts of murder. The process is highly formalized and publicized, serving as a deterrent.

(all of this from the COMMON CRIMES to here is from society of HAIQIN)

Common Crimes

Property Crimes: (Theft and Burglary)

Punishments: For theft or burglary, the justice system emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Common punishments include fines, community service, and restorative justice programs where offenders work directly with victims to make amends. For repeat offenders or more serious thefts, prison sentences may be imposed. In certain cases, a restorative justice circle is held, where both offender and victim meet with community members to discuss the impact and agree on steps to repair harm.

Environmental Violations:

Punishments: Environmental violations, such as illegal dumping or deforestation, are treated seriously due to Haiqin's commitment to sustainability. Offenders may face hefty fines, along with the requirement to participate in environmental restoration projects. In severe cases, the offender may be subjected to community labor to repair environmental damage, including tree planting or soil regeneration efforts. Jail time can be imposed for repeated or severe offenses that cause significant environmental harm.

Cybercrimes (Information Theft, Hacking, etc.)

Punishments: Cybercrimes, such as hacking, information theft, or unauthorized surveillance, are growing in Haiqin with the rise of technology. Punishments typically involve heavy fines and mandatory cybersecurity education programs to prevent future offenses. In cases of severe data breaches or espionage, offenders may be incarcerated for a set period and monitored after release. For crimes involving the exposure of state secrets, there may be higher penalties, including exile or longer prison terms, depending on the level of harm caused.

Treason and Severe Crimes

Treason

Punishments: Acts of treason or severe offenses against the state, such as espionage, betrayal, or assassination attempts on high-ranking officials, are considered the highest form of crime. Punishments for treason are harsh and often irreversible. The primary punishment is exile, where the offender is stripped of their citizenship and banished to a remote, uninhabited area with minimal resources, ensuring they cannot return. Exiled individuals may live out their lives in isolation or serve as labor for state projects, depending on the severity of their crime. In certain extreme cases, execution is reserved for the most egregious violations, such as betrayal of the nation leading to widespread harm.

Terrorism

Punishments: Terrorism, defined as the use of violence or threats to destabilize the government or society, is considered one of the gravest crimes. The punishment for terrorism typically includes execution or life imprisonment if the offender has been involved in the planning or execution of such acts. The death penalty is applied for acts that cause significant loss of life or for individuals who lead terrorist organizations. Public executions serve as a deterrent to others and are meant to signal the government’s commitment to protecting its citizens.

Multiple Murders

Punishments: For individuals convicted of serial killings or multiple murders, the punishment is typically execution. Execution is publicized to reinforce the society’s stance against such violence. In some cases, if the individual has shown remorse or participated in rehabilitation efforts, the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment with a focus on psychological evaluation and therapy to address underlying issues.

Minor Crimes and Rehabilitation

Minor Offenses (Petty Theft, Vandalism, etc.)

Punishments: For less severe crimes such as petty theft, vandalism, or minor public disturbances, fines and community service are the primary forms of punishment. Offenders may be required to pay restitution to victims or contribute to local community projects, such as cleaning public spaces, mentoring younger individuals, or supporting charitable causes. The goal is to reintegrate the offender back into society while promoting personal growth.

Substance Abuse and Addiction Crimes

Punishments: Haiqin adopts a rehabilitative approach for crimes related to substance abuse, treating the root cause of addiction rather than focusing solely on punitive measures. Individuals arrested for substance abuse-related crimes are typically sentenced to rehabilitation programs and mandatory counseling. Repeat offenders may face longer-term rehabilitation efforts and be monitored in halfway houses or therapeutic communities.

scripted drugs aren't a thing, minus tobacco and p0t, but still. Good to have nonetheless.

Prison System and Rehabilitation

Prison:

Crimes: Serious theft, fraud, assault, drug trafficking, and large-scale property damage, murder, high cybercrimes

Punishments: Prison sentences are primarily reserved for serious crimes, including theft, violent offenses, and corruption. The prison system is designed not only to punish but to rehabilitate. Inmates are encouraged to engage in educational programs, where they can earn diplomas or certifications in vocational skills such as carpentry, plumbing, or computer science. Work programs within the prison help offenders develop a strong work ethic and prepare them for reintegration into society. Psychological counseling is often provided to address emotional and behavioral issues. Violent offenders or those with histories of aggression may be placed in higher-security prisons where rehabilitation efforts are more intensive, including anger management programs.

Restorative Justice Programs:

Crimes: Small thefts, vandalism, minor corruption, or small-scale financial crimes.

Punishments: Restorative justice programs are a key feature of Haiqin’s legal system, especially for minor offenses. These programs encourage offenders to make amends with victims through actions such as community service, financial restitution, and apology letters. Offenders may also be required to participate in mediation sessions with victims and community leaders to discuss the impact of their actions and develop a mutual understanding. These programs focus on healing the community and restoring relationships rather than solely punishing the offender.

Execution

Crimes: Terrorism, mass murder, severe cases of treason.

Public Execution:

Punishments: Public executions are reserved for crimes of the highest magnitude, such as terrorism, mass murder, or treason. The process is highly ritualized, and the goal is to deter future crimes by demonstrating the severe consequences of such actions. The execution is broadcasted to the public as a solemn reminder of the state's authority and commitment to justice. The use of public executions, however, is carefully controlled to avoid the potential for inciting unrest.

Private Execution:

Punishments: For cases where the crime is extremely heinous but does not warrant a public display, a private execution may be carried out. The offender is executed in a closed ceremony, and the details are not released to the public. This is typically reserved for individuals who have committed crimes that disrupt societal stability in profound ways.

Exile as Punishment:

Crimes: High treason, espionage, and other crimes that threaten national security but may not warrant execution.

Punishments: Exile is one of the most severe forms of punishment in Haiqin, often used for high treason or crimes that involve a severe betrayal of the nation. Offenders are stripped of all legal rights and removed from society, left to survive in remote regions with minimal support. Exile can be a form of both punishment and protection, as it removes dangerous individuals from society without resorting to execution. Exiled individuals may be forced to live in harsh conditions, working on public projects or subsisting in isolation.

(all of this from the COMMON CRIMES to here is from society of HAIQIN)

#reality shifter #reality shifting #shiftblr #shifting community #shifting #shifting motivation #shifting reality #dr scrapbook #dr world #reyaint #anti shifters dni

4 notes · View notes

spoilertv · 1 day ago

Text

#SpoilerTV

0 notes

mariacallous · 4 months ago

Text

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is backing away, one by one, from the volley of lawsuits and investigations it brought against cryptocurrency businesses under the Joe Biden administration, in a reversal described by a former attorney at the regulatory agency as “unprecedented.”

In the weeks since Donald Trump returned to the White House, the SEC has wasted no time in overhauling its crypto division. The day after the inauguration, the agency established a “crypto task force” responsible for developing a “comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets.” Then, the SEC rebranded its crypto investigations branch into a smaller-scale “cyber and emerging technology unit.”

On February 13, a federal judge granted a joint request by the SEC and Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, to pause their ongoing litigation while they await new rules from the crypto task force. The SEC petitioned for a similar pause on Wednesday in a separate case against Justin Sun, the Chinese crypto entrepreneur who recently announced he had invested $75 million in a crypto project with ties to the Trump family.

In the last week alone, the SEC agreed to drop its lawsuit against crypto exchange Coinbase outright, while trading platforms Robinhood and Uniswap, nonfungible token marketplace OpenSea, and crypto software company Consensys all celebrated the apparent end of SEC investigations into their respective crypto activities.

The recalibration of the SEC’s previously adversarial stance toward crypto is meant to afford companies the “freedom to experiment and build interesting things,” said SEC commissioner Hester Peirce in a recent statement, while still shielding investors from fraud. But others have interpreted the pivot as a signal that the crypto industry will be subject to a far-reduced level of scrutiny.

“The dismantling of the SEC enforcement program is mammoth. The radical turnabout that the SEC has undertaken in the last month is truly unbelievable,” says John Stark, who served for 18 years as an attorney at the SEC. Ultimately, he says, the SEC’s lawsuits against crypto firms “are all going to be gone, gone, gone.”

The SEC did not respond to an interview request or a request for comment relating to this story.

The New Crypto Game Plan

During the Biden presidency, the SEC was a thorn in the side of crypto businesses, which it repeatedly asserted had violated US securities laws by failing to register with the agency. It was near-impossible to do business in the US, Coinbase told WIRED in 2023, with the constant fear of litigation hanging overhead and without any crypto-specific rules to follow.

In response to what crypto businesses considered outright hostility from the SEC under Biden, the industry embarked on a colossal lobbying effort in the lead-up to the 2024 election. Crypto companies and their executives funneled more than $150 million into three super political action committees—Fairshake, Protect Progress, and Defend American Jobs—set up to support pro-crypto congressional candidates. Meanwhile, high-profile crypto figures—among them Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, cofounders of the crypto platform Gemini, and Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, venture capitalists heavily invested in crypto startups—came out in support of Trump. The strategy apparently worked.

In July, on the campaign trail, Trump promised a crowd of bitcoiners that he would fire previous SEC chair Gary Gensler if reelected. “I didn’t know he was that unpopular,” said Trump, referring to the crowd’s rapturous response to the pledge. In November, after Trump won the election, the crypto industry got to help handpick the nominee to replace Gensler, landing on Paul Atkins, a former SEC commissioner who has expressed the view that crypto businesses have been treated unfairly in the US. (Atkins remains sidelined for now, pending confirmation.)

The argument advanced by the crypto industry—that it was subjected to wrongful lawsuits by a politically motivated regulator—is likely to have struck a chord with Trump, says Anthony Scaramucci, founder of the crypto-focused investment firm SkyBridge Capital and former communications director for Trump. “Trump is a big believer in lawfare,” says Scaramucci. “If you go to Trump saying you’re a victim of lawfare … he’s going to side with that.”

According to Stand With Crypto, a nonprofit pushing for bespoke crypto regulation in the US, more than 250 pro-crypto representatives were elected to Congress in 2024. The crypto industry claimed high-profile scalps in races in which it had invested most heavily: In Ohio, incumbent Democratic senator Sherrod Brown, depicted as an archvillain in crypto circles, was unseated by Republican Bernie Moreno. Through Defend American Jobs, the crypto industry spent more than $40 million in support of Moreno.

Having witnessed the efficacy of the crypto lobbying machine, politicians concerned about the security of their own seats are potentially less likely to voice opposition to the industry in the future, says Scaramucci, which in turn increases the chances of crypto-specific regulation falling into place and crypto-focused legislation making it into law.

“The Democrats have gotten the life scared out of ’em,” says Scaramucci. “You have to have regulatory clarity. With the Trump administration, you’ll get that. You’ve got enough Democrats scared that will side with [Republicans] to create that.”

A Double-Edged Sword

The SEC’s retreat from its outstanding lawsuits against crypto businesses will be received as an early signal of the agency’s intent to work arm in arm with the industry to come up with a set of rules to govern crypto transactions and products.

That rule book will clear up the question at the heart of the lawsuits: Which crypto assets should be classified as securities, the specific type of investment product over which the SEC has jurisdiction, and in what context?

“I think the industry sees regulators willing to work across the table from them,” says Coy Garrison, a partner at law firm Steptoe and a former SEC attorney. “That’s the difference. Four years ago, the other side of the table was just the enforcement arm.”

But it’s a mistake to interpret the SEC’s withdrawal from the crypto-related cases as a total loosening of the leash, claims Garrison. “Sometimes, it’s easy for people to only see the top line,” he says. “The SEC is still going to be policing potential fraudulent activity within its jurisdiction relating to crypto.”

It is unlikely that the SEC’s new stance toward crypto will trigger an immediate proliferation of new crypto products and services in the US. But once the crypto task force has set out its rules, crypto companies will feel emboldened to enter new corners of the US market, sources say.

“The creativity of the crypto industry knows no bounds,” says Stark. “From retirement money to 529s, exchange-traded funds, asset-backed securities, and derivatives. Expect crypto to infiltrate everywhere. Why not?”

Meanwhile, assets like memecoins, a class of crypto coin that typically has no strict purpose but to act as a vehicle for financial speculation, are likely to go unregulated by the SEC. A few days prior to his inauguration, Trump himself launched a memecoin, which was roundly criticized—including by members of the crypto industry—as an alleged money grab and a potential vector for bribery.

In recent lawsuits brought against memecoin platforms and promoters, complainants sought to argue that memecoins meet the definition of a security in certain conditions and should therefore be subject to securities laws. But on Thursday, the SEC put out a statement outlining the view that memecoins do not fall within its jurisdiction.

“The likelihood of the SEC conducting an investigation into a memecoin is slim to none—and slim just left town,” says Stark.

The obvious benefits for crypto businesses associated with the changes at the SEC must be weighed against the potential reputational downsides that come with the unwillingness of the new-look agency to police the most unserious and grift-heavy corners of the sector.

Similarly, the warmth shown toward the industry by the White House comes with a caveat: Trump appears intent to share in the financial upside through crypto endeavors of his own, which some have argued will heap scorn onto the industry and undermine its search for legitimacy.

“With Donald Trump, you get the entire buffet table. There’s no à la carte,” says Scaramucci. “You start with the grifting and self-dealing,” he alleges. “Then you’re getting some pro-crypto ideas and regulation. You’ve got to eat everything.”

9 notes · View notes

policy-wire · 9 days ago

Text

#news #breaking news #world news #usa #uk #reuters #Policy Wire

0 notes

ultimatevoyageamulet · 16 days ago

Text

Transaction monitoring

Transaction monitoring is a critical process in the financial and regulatory industries used to detect and prevent suspicious or illicit activities within financial transactions. It involves continuously reviewing and analyzing financial transactions—such as deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and payments—to identify unusual behavior that may indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, or other financial crimes.

Transaction monitoring plays a vital role in ensuring regulatory compliance, maintaining trust in financial systems, and protecting institutions and their customers from risk. As financial crimes evolve and become more sophisticated, transaction monitoring systems must adapt to detect emerging threats effectively.

Understanding Transaction Monitoring

Transaction monitoring refers to the automated and manual processes that observe and assess customer transactions in real time or retrospectively. These processes are designed to identify patterns or anomalies that deviate from expected behavior, triggering alerts for further investigation. It is an essential component of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF) frameworks required by global financial regulations.

The scope of transaction monitoring includes activities such as:

Monitoring transfers between accounts

Tracking cash deposits and withdrawals

Observing foreign exchange activities

Scrutinizing wire transfers, online payments, and credit card transactions

Detecting structuring (smurfing), layering, and other known money laundering tactics

1. Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the European Union require financial institutions to implement robust monitoring systems to detect and report suspicious activities. Non-compliance can lead to hefty fines, loss of licenses, and damage to reputation.

2. Preventing Financial Crime

Transaction monitoring helps detect and deter a wide range of financial crimes, including money laundering, terrorist financing, identity theft, fraud, and insider trading. By analyzing behavioral patterns, institutions can spot inconsistencies early and prevent further losses.

3. Risk Management

Financial institutions face high operational and reputational risks when dealing with high-risk clients or large volumes of transactions. Monitoring systems mitigate these risks by flagging potential threats and reducing the chances of undetected illicit activity.

4. Customer Trust and Security

By protecting customer funds and ensuring transaction legitimacy, monitoring systems help build trust. Customers expect their banks and financial service providers to have safeguards in place that secure their accounts and prevent misuse. How Transaction Monitoring Works

A typical transaction monitoring system involves several key components:

1. Data Collection

Financial institutions collect vast amounts of transaction data from multiple sources, including internal systems (like banking platforms) and external databases (like sanction lists or PEP registries). These data points include customer details, transaction amounts, times, locations, and counterparties.

2. Rule-Based Monitoring

Traditional transaction monitoring uses a rule-based approach, where predefined rules and thresholds are set to detect suspicious activities. For example, a rule might flag any cash deposit exceeding $10,000 or frequent transfers to high-risk countries.

3. Machine Learning and AI

Modern transaction monitoring incorporates artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to enhance detection accuracy. These technologies analyze vast data sets to detect subtle patterns, learn from historical data, and reduce false positives by distinguishing between legitimate and suspicious behavior.

4. Alert Generation

When a transaction or pattern of transactions violates a set rule or is identified by AI as potentially suspicious, the system generates an alert. Each alert is scored based on the severity of risk and sent to the compliance team for review.

5. Case Management and Investigation

Alerts are investigated by compliance officers who assess whether further action is needed. This may involve gathering more customer information, freezing accounts, or filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with relevant authorities.

Types of Suspicious Activities Detected

Transaction monitoring systems can detect a wide range of suspicious activities, including:

Structuring: Breaking up large transactions into smaller ones to avoid detection.

Unusual Geographic Activity: Transfers to or from countries flagged for terrorism or sanctions.

Rapid Movement of Funds: Money moving quickly through multiple accounts, indicating layering.

Inconsistent Transaction Behavior: Transactions that deviate from a customer’s usual patterns.

Use of Shell Companies: Transactions involving entities with little to no business substance.

High-Risk Industries or Customers: Transactions involving known high-risk sectors or politically exposed persons (PEPs).

Challenges in Transaction Monitoring

Despite its benefits, transaction monitoring presents several challenges:

1. High Volume of Alerts

Systems often generate a large number of false positives, overwhelming compliance teams and making it difficult to focus on genuine threats.

2. Evolving Criminal Techniques

Criminals continually develop new methods to evade detection, requiring systems to adapt and evolve regularly.

3. Data Integration

Many financial institutions operate across different systems and geographies, making it difficult to consolidate and analyze data effectively.

4. Resource Constraints

Smaller institutions may lack the budget or expertise to deploy sophisticated monitoring systems or maintain large compliance teams.

5. Regulatory Complexity

Global institutions must comply with different regulations across jurisdictions, adding to the complexity of monitoring and reporting.

Best Practices for Effective Transaction Monitoring

To ensure a robust and efficient transaction monitoring framework, institutions should adopt best practices:

Risk-Based Approach: Tailor monitoring based on customer risk profiles and transaction types.

Continuous Updating of Rules and Models: Regularly review and refine rules and AI models to respond to new threats.

Cross-Department Collaboration: Encourage communication between departments (IT, compliance, legal) to improve investigation efficiency.

Employee Training: Provide regular training to compliance officers and employees to recognize suspicious activity.

Audit and Review: Conduct regular audits of the monitoring system to identify gaps and ensure performance.

Future Trends in Transaction Monitoring

The future of transaction monitoring is increasingly data-driven and technology-enabled:

Real-Time Monitoring: Instead of post-facto analysis, institutions are moving toward real-time or near-real-time monitoring to catch threats early.

Advanced Analytics: Use of big data, predictive analytics, and behavioral modeling to enhance accuracy.

RegTech Integration: Regulatory Technology (RegTech) solutions automate compliance and improve system integration.

Blockchain Monitoring: With the rise of cryptocurrency, new tools are being developed to monitor blockchain transactions for suspicious activity.

Conclusion

Transaction monitoring is an indispensable element of modern financial compliance and crime prevention. It enables institutions to identify and address suspicious activities promptly, safeguarding not only their assets but also the broader financial ecosystem. As financial crime continues to grow in complexity, transaction monitoring systems must evolve—leveraging advanced technology, refining methodologies, and fostering a culture of compliance. Institutions that invest in robust, adaptive monitoring systems are better positioned to mitigate risk, comply with regulations, and maintain customer trust in a digital and globalized economy.

0 notes

snehalshinde65799 · 16 days ago

Text

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Solutions Market Innovation Accelerates Amidst Rising Financial Crime Threats

The Anti-Money Laundering (AML) solutions market has witnessed remarkable growth over the past decade, driven by escalating global financial crimes, stricter regulatory frameworks, and increased adoption of advanced technologies in financial institutions. AML solutions, which include transaction monitoring systems, customer identity management, compliance software, and data analytics tools, are pivotal in identifying, preventing, and reporting suspicious financial activities. With financial crimes becoming more sophisticated, businesses and regulators are turning toward more integrated and intelligent AML systems to combat money laundering effectively.

Market Drivers

One of the primary forces behind the growth of the AML solutions market is the tightening of regulations across the globe. Regulatory bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the European Union’s AML directives have imposed stringent rules on financial institutions to ensure transparency and prevent illicit financial flows. Institutions that fail to comply face hefty fines, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

The growing digitalization of banking services has also made AML compliance more critical. With an increase in online transactions, mobile banking, cryptocurrency exchanges, and cross-border transfers, there is a higher risk of fraudulent activity. Consequently, financial institutions are compelled to implement advanced AML solutions to monitor, analyze, and detect suspicious behavior in real time.

Technological Advancements

Technology is transforming the AML landscape, enabling faster and more accurate detection of money laundering schemes. Modern AML systems incorporate artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and big data analytics to enhance risk scoring, automate due diligence processes, and improve the accuracy of alerts. These technologies can identify complex patterns and anomalies in financial behavior that traditional rule-based systems might miss.

Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures have also evolved with the integration of biometric verification, digital identity checks, and blockchain-based identity management systems. These innovations not only ensure compliance but also streamline customer onboarding and reduce fraud.

Market Segmentation and Trends

The AML solutions market is segmented by component (software and services), deployment type (on-premises and cloud), organization size (SMEs and large enterprises), and end-user (banks, insurance, gaming, e-commerce, and others). Among these, banks represent the largest share of the AML market due to their central role in financial transactions and high compliance burden.

Cloud-based AML solutions are gaining popularity, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, due to their scalability, lower upfront costs, and ease of integration with existing systems. The adoption of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) models also allows organizations to remain agile and quickly adapt to regulatory changes.

Another growing trend is the integration of AML with fraud detection systems, creating unified compliance platforms. This convergence helps organizations reduce operational silos, improve data sharing, and achieve a more holistic view of customer behavior.

Regional Insights

North America leads the global AML solutions market, driven by a strong regulatory environment, early adoption of advanced technologies, and the presence of major market players. The U.S. government’s implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 has further accelerated investments in AML technologies.

Europe is also a significant market, with the EU’s AMLD5 and AMLD6 directives reshaping the compliance landscape. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to witness the fastest growth, fueled by increasing regulatory awareness, the expansion of digital banking, and rising concerns over financial crimes in emerging economies such as India and China.

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite significant advancements, the AML solutions market faces several challenges. These include high implementation costs, false positive rates, and the shortage of skilled professionals to manage complex AML systems. Additionally, financial institutions must balance compliance with user privacy and operational efficiency.

However, these challenges present opportunities for innovation. Vendors are focusing on developing user-friendly, cost-effective AML tools with enhanced automation and analytics capabilities. Partnerships between fintech companies and traditional banks are also on the rise, fostering innovation in compliance strategies.

Future Outlook

The future of the AML solutions market looks promising, with continuous investments in AI-driven systems, expansion into non-banking sectors, and greater regulatory collaboration across borders. As financial crime evolves, so will the technology to fight it. Organizations that proactively invest in AML infrastructure and embrace digital transformation will not only stay compliant but also gain a competitive edge in the ever-evolving financial ecosystem.

#AMLSolutions #AntiMoneyLaundering #FinancialCompliance #RegTech #FinTech #FinancialCrime

0 notes