April 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

WeWork’s Stock Imploded to 13 Cents Yesterday; Its Cult-Master, Adam Neumann, Cashed Out Years Ago and Is a Billionaire
by Gunnar Larson 28 Apr '24

28 Apr '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/08/weworks-stock-imploded-to-13-cents-y… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 10, 2023 ~ Adam Neumann Adam Neumann, Chairman and CEO of The We Company in 2019 That office space company we warned our readers about so extensively in 2019, WeWork, collapsed to 13 cents a share yesterday. Its bonds were trading at about 13 cents on the dollar. WeWork’s stock has been on a steady decline since the company began to trade publicly on October 21, 2021. The chart above shows how investors would have fared in WeWork stock versus a 10-year U.S. Treasury note since WeWork started trading in 2021. The collapse in the share price this week came as a result of an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday in which the company uttered these discomforting words: “…as a result of the Company’s losses and projected cash needs, combined with increased member churn and current liquidity levels, substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.” The reason we invested so much digital ink on WeWork back in 2019 was because some very shrewd Wall Street lawyers and investment bankers were planning to dump this dog on the American people as an IPO with an insane valuation. JPMorgan Securities LLC, a unit of five-felony-count JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs & Co. were to be the lead underwriters on the IPO. Scott Galloway, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, wrote on his blog at the time that “bankers (JPM and Goldman) stand to register $122 million in fees flinging feces at retail investors….” The deal was so dodgy that Galloway took to calling it WeWTF. Wall Street On Parade called WeWork’s planned IPO “hype wrapped in subterfuge.” We said “It’s a money-losing commercial real estate company attempting to pass itself off as the Dalai Lama of office space rentals. The company has never made a dime of profits and its losses spiraled to $900 million in the first half of this year.” To enhance its valuation, WeWork lamely attempted to suggest it was tied to technological breakthroughs. We explained in 2019: “We’re also going to have to excise ‘the extensive technology infrastructure’ because what they’re really talking about is not Silicon Valley breakthrough technology but jazzing up drab offices with beer taps, microbrewed coffee, fruit-infused water and WiFi – the latter of which you can get for free in any Panera’s, along with a table and chair, for the price of a cup of herbal tea.” In an attempt to give this lipstick-on-a-pig of an IPO added luster, WeWork was represented by a very sophisticated law firm, Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. The Wall Street bank underwriters were represented by another sophisticated law firm, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett. How all of these legal eagles yawned at the conflicts of the then Chairman and CEO of WeWork, Adam Neumann, was a question worthy of the napping SEC. As then Chairman and CEO of WeWork, Neumann owed his loyalty to the company under the past century of corporate law. But, instead, he was allowed to buy up commercial real estate on his own behalf and then lease it back to WeWork. According to the IPO prospectus, WeWork was leasing four properties from Neumann on which it owed “future undiscounted minimum lease payments” of “approximately $236.6 million….” Neumann owned another six properties which WeWork might decide to buy from him according to the prospectus. Unfortunately, Neumann had the right to overrule the Board of Directors according to the prospectus: “Adam [Neumann] controls a majority of the Company’s voting power, principally as a result of his beneficial ownership of our high-vote stock. Since our high-vote stock carries twenty votes per share, Adam will have the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to the Company’s stockholders for approval, including the election of the Company’s directors. As a founder-led company, we believe that this voting structure aligns our interests in creating shareholder value.” In 2019, Neumann was 40 years old, a former member of the Israeli military, and had previously lived in a Kibbutz. Where did he get those huge sums of money to buy up all that real estate? According to the prospectus, JPMorgan Chase Bank, UBS, and Credit Suisse gave Neumann a $500 million credit line, of which he had already tapped $380 million. In addition, JPMorgan Chase had “made loans and extended credit” to Neumann “totaling $97.5 million across a variety of lending products, including mortgages secured by personal property and unsecured credit lines and letters of credit.” The IPO in 2019 was so heavily panned by Professor Galloway, ourselves, and numerous others that it had to be cancelled — a big embarrassment to JPMorgan, Goldman and those big name law firms. Neumann resigned as CEO shortly after the IPO was pulled. Two years later, WeWork did an end run by going public by merging with a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). As of this morning, Forbes puts Neumann’s wealth at $2.2 billion. He made his wealth by selling shares in WeWork when it was still private. Professor Galloway predicted four years ago how the end would come to WeWork. He nailed it, writing: “WeWTF is an especially risky business going into a recession, when the ability to variabilize costs is limited, but revenue decline is unlimited. WeWTF has $47 billion in long-term obligations (leases) and will do $3 billion in revenue this year. What could go wrong?” Galloway was also ahead of his time calling WeWork a “cult.” Last year, Apple TV released a series called WeCrashed, depicting the cultish nature of the company. It starred Jared Leto as Neumann and Anne Hathaway as his wife, Rebekah. (See trailer below.) The purpose of Wall Street is to be an efficient allocator of capital so that businesses with real prospects for innovation, job creation, and growth come to market to make America more prosperous and to keep it competitive on the global stage. Unfortunately, we find ourselves writing more and more about cults that are trading on the New York Stock Exchange. (In addition to WeWork, see here, here and here.) And, of course, there is the cult at the FTX crypto exchange which was gearing up to go public but imploded under the weight of its massive frauds instead and is now in bankruptcy proceedings. In that company, the key executives lived together in a penthouse and took billions of dollars in personal loans for themselves — money which belonged to its customers. Something is deeply, deeply wrong with the structure of Wall Street and the watchdogs that are supposed to be policing it.

1 0

WeWork?s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street?s Universal Bank Model
by Gunnar Larson 28 Apr '24

28 Apr '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2019/10/weworks-unraveling-is-another-indict… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: October 22, 2019 ~ Adam Neumann Adam Neumann, Founder of WeWork WeWork is just one more in a long series of Wall Street scandals that prove that the universal banking model is little more than a thinly-disguised wealth transfer system from the pockets of average Americans to the 1 percent. Just two months ago WeWork’s two lead Wall Street underwriters, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, were planning to offer WeWork’s shares to the public investor at a valuation in excess of $47 billion. Now we are learning that the company may run out of money next month and has an actual valuation of $8 billion or less. WeWork’s founder, Adam Neumann, who was attempting to cash out of his company that had never made a dime of profits in its nine years of existence and had run up losses of $900 million in just the first six months of this year, will walk away as a billionaire according to a report in the Wall Street Journal this morning. According to the Journal, the Japanese SoftBank is planning to take over the mess and plow in more billions in a private buyout. SoftBank already has $10.5 billion invested in WeWork so it is effectively doubling down on a bad trade – something that even rookie stockbrokers know better than to do. The obvious questions are why did two seasoned underwriters agree to bring this dog of a company public; why did JPMorgan, pre-IPO, shower Neumann with more than $100 million in personal loans despite his egregious conflicts of interest with WeWork, a company it was planning to bring public; what does it say about the capital allocation process in the United States that this charade came so close to going public and when the ethically-challenged Neumann can walk away as a billionaire? Neumann was buying up real estate and then leasing it to WeWork. He also trademarked the name “The We Company” and sold it back to the company for $5.9 million. (The money was returned after the deal was reported in the media.) Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are known as “universal” banks. Each is the owner of a commercial bank which takes in federally-insured deposits from moms and pops across America while also owning an investment bank that underwrites and trades in high risk stock and bond offerings. That is a combustible mix that is completely incompatible with U.S. statutory mandates for the “safety and soundness” of commercial banks whose deposits are backstopped by the U.S. taxpayer. >From 1933 until 1999, universal banks were illegal in the United States. Then one day Sandy Weill whispered to John Reed that “we could be so rich,” and got the Clinton administration to go along with repealing the 66-year old Glass-Steagall Act which prevented these kinds of mergers. The universal bank that Weill and Reed created, Citigroup, did indeed make both men obscenely rich. It also collapsed in 2009 to a 99 cent stock while receiving the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history. In order to maintain safety and soundness, federal regulators require that commercial banks stay clear of dangerous reputational risks that might prompt a run on the bank by depositors. The poster child for this dangerous cocktail of mixing depository banks with Wall Street’s risky trading is the London Whale scandal that occurred at JPMorgan Chase in 2012. JPMorgan Chase had the not-so-brilliant idea to create a unit known as the Chief Investment Office (CIO) inside its federally-insured commercial bank where it would gamble in high risk derivatives in London and call it hedging for the commercial bank in hopes of slipping under the radar of regulators. The derivative bets became so large that they rocked the derivatives market, which resulted in media coverage and exposure of what was really going on. What was really going on was $6.2 billion in depositor losses from derivative bets gone awry inside JPMorgan’s federally-insured bank. The federal regulator of national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, stated in its consent order against JPMorgan Chase that its findings “establish that the Bank has deficiencies in its internal controls and has engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of 12 C.F.R. Part 3, Appendix B (Market Risk Management Amendment) with respect to the credit derivatives trading strategies, activities and positions employed by the CIO on behalf of the Bank.” What does WeWork have to do with the safety and soundness of JPMorgan Chase? It sounds an awful lot like JPMorgan may have been “tying” its offer of personal loans from its commercial bank to Adam Neumann in exchange for its investment bank landing the role of lead underwriter in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of WeWork shares. Tying is illegal and could, once again, subject the bank to charges of engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices. If tying was not involved here, how does one explain the size of the money that was lavished on Neumann, the CEO of a failed business model of taking out long-term leases on office real estate (to the tune of $47 billion) and then subleasing it to startups and freelancers on a short-term basis – folks who are known to flee to a home office in a downturn. The failure of this model was further evidenced by the fact that in 2018 the company had lost $1.6 billion with an escalating $900 million in losses in the first two quarters of 2019. According to the prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the now-aborted IPO, JPMorgan Chase “has made loans and extended credit to Adam Neumann totaling $97.5 million across a variety of lending products, including mortgages secured by personal property and unsecured credit lines and letters of credit.” The prospectus also revealed that JPMorgan Chase was one of three banks that had given Neumann a $500 million line of credit, of which he had already drawn down $380 million as of July 31, 2019. The line of credit was secured by shares of stock in The We Company, the parent name of WeWork. In addition, according to multiple media reports, JPMorgan Chase was the third largest investor in the pre-IPO shares of WeWork. Clearly, it will have to take a major haircut on those investments. Related Articles: The Dickensian Tale of the WeWork IPO In the WeWork IPO, the Money Trails End Up at JPMorgan’s Doorstep JPMorgan Chase Has Billions in CRE Loans Riding on WeWork Surviving Will Jamie Dimon Finally Lose His Job Over Racketeering Charges?

1 0

Death blow to the patriarchy time!
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 28 Apr '24

28 Apr '24

Death to Michael Bloomberg ( my 2k sats ) “NO GODS, NO MASTERS, NO HUSBANDS ' https://www.anarchistnews.org/content/%E2%80%9Cno-gods-no-masters-no-husban… Gunnar Larson type suits go fuck yourselves.

1 0

Fwd: FOIL Request No. 2021-085728 (Larson) - DFS Tech Sprint
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

Dear Carmen and Pascale: xNY.io - Bank.org today elects to re-visit FOIL Request No. 2021-085728. Specific to NY-DFS asking xNY.io - Bank.org for certification, "With respect to your request for a list of names of Techsprint registrants, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(iii), an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but is not limited to the “sale or release of lists of names and addresses..." xNY.io - Bank.org can confirm we will not release the information publicly. Would NY-DFS kindly be able to fulfill this request? Have a great day. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) <Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2021, 1:31 PM Subject: FOIL Request No. 2021-085728 (Larson) To: G(a)xNY.io <G(a)xny.io> Cc: Garrett, Carmen (DFS) <Carmen.Garrett(a)dfs.ny.gov> Dear Mr. Larson: Please see the attached determination in response to your FOIL request. Thank you. ANDREW M. CUOMO Governor LINDA A. LACEWELL Superintendent One State Street New York, NY 10004 │ www.dfs.ny.gov VIA EMAIL (G(a)xNY.io) June 4, 2021 Mr. Gunnar Larson xNY.io - CryptoBank New York, New York 10001 Re: Your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2021-085728 Dear Mr. Larson: I write in response to a FOIL request that you submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department”) on March 3, 2021, which has been assigned the above-referenced tracking number and seeks the “DFS' approval roster (complete approved registration list) with corresponding business affiliation” for registrants of the DFS Techsprint. Specifically, your FOIL request reads as follows: “Good day: Per the e-mail correspondence below concerning the DFS Tech Sprint Innovational, this request is to define and keep the public informed of DFS' approval roster (complete approved registration list) with corresponding business affiliation on the basis of New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) One of the tools available to the public to attain this type of information is access to records concerning any participants role in computer crimes actively engaged at the will of xNY.io's Tech Sprint denial. As the Sprint is now ongoing with DFS' approved participants. the member roster report and affiliation statistics stand already available. Can you kindly advise if this FOIL records request can be complete this week? Thank you. -- Gunnar Larson - www.xNY.io MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io+1-646-454-9107New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: dfs.sm.DfsNext Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:56 PM Subject: Update on DFS Techsprint To: dfs.sm.DfsNext Hello, Thank you for your interest in the Techsprint. Unfortunately, at this time, we are not able to extend you an invitation to participate. Thank you again for applying. Best,DFS Next DFSNext New York State I. Business Affiliations of Techsprint Registrants The Department is withholding the business affiliations of Techsprint registrants pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b), which provides an exemption from disclosure for records or portions thereof that, “if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article.” Public Officers Law § 89(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of information that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, which includes employment history. See Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i). In our view, because employment history is specifically protected, the release of business affiliations of Techsprint registrants would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). Accordingly, the portion of your request that seeks the business affiliations of Techsprint registrants is denied. Pursuant to N.Y. Public Officers Law § 89(4), you may appeal the Department’s determination to withhold records within 30 days by sending an email to D. Monica Marsh, Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Financial Services at FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. II. List of Names of Techsprint Registrants With respect to your request for a list of names of Techsprint registrants, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(iii), an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but is not limited to the “sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purposes.” Please provide your certification that you will not use the requested information for solicitation or fundraising purposes by June 11, 2021. If the Department does not receive your certification by that date, we will deem this portion of your FOIL request withdrawn. Very truly yours, Pascale Jean-Baptiste Acting FOIL Officer Office of General Counsel

1 1

Crypto lender Nexo seeks $3 bln in damages from Bulgaria over aborted investigation | Reuters
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

My God! --- https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-lender-nexo-seeks-3-bln-damages-b… LONDON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Cryptocurrency lender Nexo is seeking $3 billion in damages from Bulgaria over an aborted criminal investigation that the company alleges scuppered its plans for a U.S. stock market listing and a soccer sponsorship deal, legal filings seen by Reuters show. Nexo AG, a Swiss unit of Cayman Islands-based Nexo Capital, alleges the investigation tarnished its reputation and destroyed shareholder value, according to a document filed with the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The Washington-based ICSID, an international arbitration institution that handles disputes between international investors and states, registered the case on Jan. 18, its website showed. An ICSID spokesperson could not confirm the level of damages sought or other details. Bulgaria's finance ministry said it had received a request for arbitration from the ICSID, which would be reviewed by a specialised inter-departmental committee that would then propose next steps. "This or any other communications... shall not be considered in any way an admission as to the substance of any claims or as an acceptance of any arbitral jurisdiction," it added. The prosecutor's office, also a respondent in the case, did not respond to requests for comment. Bulgarian prosecutors in Jan. 2023 launched an investigation into Nexo AG, raiding offices in Sofia and charging its founders with offences that included participating in an organised crime group to launder money and commit tax and computer fraud. But they dropped the case last month, saying there was no evidence of criminal activity. Prosecutors said there was no legal framework for crypto asset services in Bulgaria. Nexo, co-founded by former Bulgarian lawmaker Antoni Trenchev, had denied wrongdoing and alleges the investigation was politically motivated - an allegation previously denied by prosecutors, local news agency BTA has reported. U.S. regulators in particular have been cracking down on alleged illicit activity at top crypto firms, but it is unusual for a crypto firm to take on a country over compensation for a investigation that was dropped. ICSID has previously ordered various countries, including Pakistan, Ecuador and Venezuela, to pay out billions in damages to companies. Reuters was unable to verify Nexo's alleged damages. In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, Trenchev declined to publicly name the banks he said had been instructed for any listing or which European soccer club ended sponsorship talks. Crypto lenders act like banks for the crypto world, offering customers interest on cryptocurrencies they deposit with the platform. Nexo, founded in 2018, phased out its U.S. products and services last year and agreed to pay $45 million to settle charges from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and state regulators that it failed to register its crypto asset lending product.

1 2

SpaceX Corporation Board of Directors One Rocket Road Hawthorne, California 90250 Sales@SpaceX.com Re: Potential SpaceX Interlocking Directors? Intent to Manipulate Markets
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS… May 21, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL SpaceX Corporation Board of Directors One Rocket Road Hawthorne, California 90250 Sales(a)SpaceX.com Re: Potential SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets Dear SpaceX Board of Directors: >From our New York headquarters, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC embodies the notion that rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change and innovation is like a slide. Today’s memo aims to notify the SpaceX Corporation of concern of potential market manipulation that could impact cross-border digital asset innovation, free speech in the United States of America, the global ESG economy and Moon exploration. We do not see this as a stereotypical democrat versus republican battle (as Mr. Musk alludes). We see this as a risk arbitrage matter for xNY.io - Bank.org’s profit (subject to regulatory approval). Some may argue a scheme to leverage the protection of “free speech” has led to Twitter deal advisors attempting a $44B LBO market manipulation exercise. Further cause for reasonable concern is warranted if similar intent is at play in the form of Tesla’s ESG scam claim. xNY.io - Bank.org indicators signal risk of possible intent to manipulate public and private markets prompting clarification of the SpaceX Corporation’s intent concerning Moon exploration and exploitation as a ESG digital asset vault. To be very clear, SpaceX directors should understand xNY.io - Bank.org’s work to protect cross-border digital asset innovation was born before Twitter's prospective LBO. Our concern specific to the intent of Twitter’s LBO deal makers is party to our work in New York to usurp Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase board directors who may be potentially engaged in similar market manipulation referenced here: 1. xNY.io - Bank.org | DOJ Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 2. xNY.io - Bank.org | Memo #2 - JPMorgan Chase Board of Directors ESG Marketplace Manipulation. 3. xNY.io - Bank.org’s work also includes research into oil and nickel marketplace manipulation as an ESG concern. The Twitter LBO includes Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase operating as deal advisors. As referenced above, claims of Twitter robot scams and claims of Tesla ESG scams display a pattern of questionable intent. xNY.io - Bank.org asks SpaceX to clarify your board's intent concerning the Moon and any connection to USDD (now in Moon phase). SpaceX directors may agree that the Moon can also be defined as one of the most valuable ESG digital asset vaults known to modern humanity. Protecting the Moon from explo8itation is fundamental to Space exploration. SpaceX is party to any potential Twitter deal maker advisors that may exercise questionable intent risking the Moon’s ESG vault potential. xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned with interlocking directorate syndicates that include SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal, Goldman Sachs and BitGo. This setup breeds a galaxy of third and fourth party risk(s) at the demise of pure cross-border digital asset innovation. Twitter robots are not the focus of the Orlando Police Department Pension Fund, who suggests that Twitter’s LBO is suspected of questionable intent as potentially illegal. - Mr. Musk’s ingenuity as an entrepreneur is historic and greatly respected as a model inside our organization. As a Gates Scholar and Blockchain Scholar holding international law distinction(s) The concept of the Moon being an ESG digital asset vault is logic USDD seemingly embodies. - For obvious reasons, we seek SpaceX’s board to confirm if the intent behind your CEO’s Twitter LBO and Tesla ESG claims and if SpaceX is party to a USDD type matter given your syndicate’s close association with USDP. xNY.io - Bank.org kindly asks the SpaceX Corporation board of directors to respond within 15 days of receipt of this correspondence. Default in the form of no response within 15 days is not an extortion technique on our part. Rather, it is a design benefit in disclosing our intent post 15 days to ask for approval to engage New York’s False Claims Act in response to SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal and Meta interlocking directors potentially engaging in digital asset marketplace manipulation (exemplified by USDP and USDD) that may exploit Space and Moon exploration at xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC’s overall expense. Respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson | xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> - Bank.org <http://bank.org>, PBC MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 CC: Tesla Board of Directors Twitter Board of Directors Goldman Sachs Board of Directors JP Morgan Chase Board of Directors

1 0

Fwd: Tech Sprint | xNY Design Mechanism to Report Digital Regulatory Computer Crimes
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 1:49 PM Subject: Tech Sprint | xNY Design Mechanism to Report Digital Regulatory Computer Crimes To: Shah, Seema (DFS) <seema.shah(a)dfs.ny.gov> Cc: dfs.sm.DfsNext <DfsNext(a)dfs.ny.gov>, Joshua Plant <joshua(a)plantpr.com>, <innovation(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <VCLicenseQuestions(a)dfs.ny.gov> Dear Ms. Shah: Attending each of the Tech Sprint “info-calls” and our subsequent email correspondence, being denied Tech Sprint participation without context or reply <https://thecapital.io/article/tech-sprint--ny-department-of-financial-servi…> leaves us in an awkward situation. The facility of the Tech Sprint offered four “all day working sessions” along with two weeks of workshops for problem solving issues like “marketplace manipulation.” Moving on, and to properly close the Tech Sprint chapter from our perspective, today's memo is a vehicle that aims to deliver the tool of a “new-clean-slate” as foundation to our continued dialogue together. Yes, xNY.io is very fond of the idea of our friendly regulatory future relationships with DFS. Either way, xNY.io is under strict mandate of earning the Superintendent's various approvals, thus leaving no room for us to wallow in Tech Sprint blues. Tech Sprint Submission : A Design Mechanism to Report Digital Regulatory Computer Crimes Today I briefly submit an outline of reporting innovation observations and key concerns defined by the four Tech Sprint Problem Statements. Delivery of this submission files xNY.io’s Tech Sprint participation as complete. The best hybrid virtual currency architecture and pioneering modern innovation, xNY.io and the proposed “xNY” virtual currency is of pedigree with foundational intentions beyond our counterparts xRP (Ripple) and NEXO (Nexo.io). From our direct experience on the matter, xRP and NEXO built entire global operations as direct/indirect BitLicensees with intent to profit from various cross-border computer crimes <https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/1…> such as market manipulation while being partially funded and/or directed out of New York. - Virtual currency fraud is a serious problem for such a developed country as the United States, whose bank regulators have drawn attention to the increase of these crimes. Having discovered that an unregulated virtual currency sphere (such as in Africa, or other developing markets) is very popular among virtual currency fraudsters <https://www.americanbanker.com/news/jpmorgan-chase-warns-of-upcoming-fine-o…>, the New York State Department of Financial Services concluded that this kind of regulatory fraud was threatening US national security. - If the basic problem with crypto reporting innovation is monopoly power, policy should address that issue directly. If the problem is a lack of transparency and accountability in government activities, one should find ways to open up the public sector to oversight from outsiders. If the problem is an opaque and confusing regulatory structure, rules should be simplified and clarified. - As elegantly as possible xNY.io must strive to innovate beyond a Laissez-faire attitude concerning the systems and processes in which transactions between our peers are now free from (or, almost free from) any form of economic/regulatory interventions such as the BitLicense lacking cross-border regulatory logic concern. - Ms. Shah, the BitLicense and bank innovation from the great state of New York touches people on all continents on Earth, and it seems that if given the opportunity, DFS would want to solve any market manipulation matter through technology - xNY.io underscores the need for reporting innovation specific to virtual currency marketplace manipulation and/or other crypto cross-border regulatory arbitrage frameworks directed out of New York that touching over 1 billion people (as clearly detailed in the Earth_ID conditional BitLicence application currently in DFS review). - xNY.io is concerned that DFS has potentially ignored our interests ensured through interpretations of specific provisions in the existing national and supra-national legal framework (civil law, securities law, bankruptcy law, international human rights law and civil rights law). The Superintendent may now lead New York and the global virtual currency industry in clarify the rights of the public and obligations of BitLicense members engaged in the global virtual currency economy. - This can be achieved through subtle action on “conditional approvals” that are well earned from DFS review. - BitLicense regulation must preserve a technology-neutral, principle-based, non-discriminatory framework for the next generation of modern New York virtual currency public policy, naturally to support innovation within the limits imposed by overriding international public interests. Our Tech Sprint participation was aimed at working through these matters together in a structured setting. Being champions for the rights of our future customers, it is xNY.io’s observation that DFS is not winning at engaging technology and reporting processes specific to fostering civil <https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR>/human rights <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R1ExVvx8uIibM_w5X3BjG4eTDbJH_oSC?us…>. There should be no open question on where New York stands on any matter concerning human and civil rights at home or abroad. About the Design Mechanism Behind our Tech Sprint Concept Ms. Shah, during our calls together, we discussed focusing on the listed problem statement concerning “Marketplace Manipulation.” xNY.io is concerned that these "Computer Crimes" are a marketplace manipulation matter associated with current BitLicense architecture and subject to DFS attention related to cross-border/international organized groups (that are cyber-based in New York). Given the critical role that honest and fair dealing of virtual currency is core to the BitLicense mandate, should admitted felons and serial miscreants (aka New York banks) be allowed to further expand their racket via global crypto regulatory arbitrage? xNY.io’s key definition of virtual currency computer crimes, is a consistent message across markets. These crimes are relatively new, having been in existence for only as long as Bitcoin has—which explains how unprepared society and the world, in general, is towards combating these crimes AND we see this as no fault of DFS and the original BitLicense mandate (unless not resolved before end of 2021). Goldman Sachs’ MoneyGram, NEXO, BitGo, Ripple and several BitLicensee connections profit daily from virtual currency market manipulation computer crimes with cross-border reach operating as a large syndicate group from lower Manhattan. Many DFS sanctioned BitLicencees today are very profitable enterprises and they may straddle nationalities in ways that you never would have imagined. xNY.io notes our relationship with xRP and NEXO as examples. - Ms. Shah, the jury is in and the NY-EU "CryptoBank '' regulatory loophole is a case for virtual currency market manipulation affecting computer systems and software (aka the Bitcoin blockchain) in Africa, Europe and New York State at the very least... - This activity is harming New York and xNY.io’s international virtual currency computer systems, process and overall technology (as outlined in the Earth_ID conditional Bitlicense application under DFS review) ... - xNY.io points to Ripple.com and Nexo.io as party to delaying blockchain innovation AND possibly humanity as a whole only in the name of profits of Goldman Sachs and associated bad actors - For example, New York, Europe and Africa are connected by a freeway of cross-border arbitrage frameworks. Due to easily exploitable laws in developing countries, some BitLicensees straddle daily New York, Europe and in Africa operations that evade detection and prosecution from law enforcement. Our first “conditional BitLicense” application outlined this matter in detail. - xNY.io efforts to bypass this creatively, certainly pioneering innovation and modern New York enterprise with opening CryptoBank and the xNY virtual currency Keeping all this in mind with a positive/optimistic attitude, many agree any best Tech Sprint design mechanism must have potential to innovate virtual currency industry's reporting standards should (at the very least...) aim to tackle computer crime and/or innovate beyond and strive to meet a new level that is required to support the generation of a New York international CryptoBank. Ms. Shah, in reality foreign regulators have repeatedly filed enforcement actions against the largest banks on Wall Street for engaging in fraud and rigging markets. Communicating it another way, NY-DFS may find xNY.io’s approach exotic and/or fresh, but in reality our foreign regulators have repeatedly enforced actions against (directly or indirectly) BitLicensees now freely leveraging virtual currency frameworks to rig markets abroad while being headquartered in New York. Computer Crimes (Cross-Border) and Modern BitLicense Regulatory Logic xNY.io seeks various approvals by the Superintendent to protect our enterprise and overcome any and all unnecessary delay or further loss or harm related to interstate or international transmission of threats directed against computers and computer systems (aka the Bitcoin Blockchain) and CryptoBank. New York banks’ traditional engagement of regulatory arbitrage has overflowed the BitLicense and correspondingly is responsible for global virtual currency marketplace manipulation computer crimes, some experts debate if Goldman Sachs is a RICO concern. xNY.io is at various levels a product of the best of New York banks domestically and internationally (New York, Europe and Africa…) and as such chooses to innovate rather than litigate. Given the inherent universal cross-border nature of virtual currencies, there is no real good reason for New York firms under the BitLicense mandate to manipulate other global markets via regulatory arbitrage. Circumnavigating this problem is key to modern BitLicense logic - MoneyGram, for example banks customer fees spanning postal mail, a telephone call, electronic mail, or through a other computerized messaging service. Computer Crimes as a threat is no less a threat because it is contingent, because the speaker does not intend or is unable to carry it out because the threat was not directly communicated to the MoneyGram customer as a target, or because the language used might be considered cryptic or ambiguously not part of the current BitLicense mandate. - Goldman Sachs’ legacy MoneyGram investment vs. direct correlation between xRP and NEXO virtual currencies arguably covers many computer crimes including wire fraud and cross-border marketplace manipulation. - Additionally, xRP and NEXO operating as potential bad actors have put the purity of blockchain systems, processes and pose purity risks to exchange software as Dark Pools, from our direct experience on the matter. - Over the last five years Goldman Sachs created layer upon layer (MoneyGram, NEXO, xRP, BitGo) of BitLicense related disguises and cross-border systems under potential conspiracy and plausible deniability to computer crimes and marketplace manipulation. - Our CryptoBank aims to elegantly side-step all this basing our innovative operations in New York and winning necessary DFS approvals. - xNY.io’s approach in seeking confidence in “reporting systems and process” as a fundamental best practice that protects ourselves and our customers from interstate or international transmission of threats against computers, computer networks, and virtual currency data networks and their programs. - xNY, CryptoBank: xNY.io vs. Nexo.io and Ripple.com - XNY, Cryptocurrency: xNY vs. NEXO and xRP Finally, and forever forgetting any sentiments about being denied Tech Sprint participation, we encourage DFS to consider that the Tech Sprint’s overall success is already a success from the xNY.io side. From our Tech Sprint “marketplace manipulation” calls together ... DFS now has a potential cross-border human/civil rights solution developed as a "tech-based" response to the problem statement(s) that specifically addresses both the threats of future damage AND the current cross-border "computer crime" merry-go-round responsible for extortionate damage already inflicted. Thank you, Ms. Shah! Next Steps … Onward! Surveying the best next steps, we hope DFS embraces the fact that xNY.io has no other option outside of moving from low into high gear on the journey of seeking various conditional approvals and beginning a long-term regulatory relationship all at the will of the Superintendent's action. - For all people on planet Earth, the question should not hinge on any debate or worry that New York regulators are not taking market manipulation seriously. - xNY.io again has every right to earn conditional approvals with the aim to serve billions of people as customers. PayPal, MoneyGram and Robinhood had their chance, so did xRP … While now NEXO aims to further leverage computer crimes at the expense of New York and the BitLicense. Our team in Europe, Africa and New York comes to DFS with an impressive and sophisticated solution of xNY.io to evolve up and innovate beyond whatever roadblocks stand in our way. Moreover, we look forward to doing all this in collaboration with DFS while fostering meaningful contributions to the legacy of New York (if nothing else, via evergreen State tax contribution). - xNY.io will be submitting a new/updated folio for DFS review and hopeful consideration of "conditional approval(s)" by the Superintendent over 2021. The new application is remarkably revolutionary … Including wise architecture for DFS and xNY.io to leapfrog cross-border computer crimes efficiently as foundation to CryptoBank and the xNY virtual currency being an elegant solution as the world deserves - Note, xNY.io aims to privately seek DFS' signal, through a series of upcoming private conversations together … Given many good reasons, DFS has a historic opportunity to signal sentiments on xNY.io’s new “conditional approval(s) on the viability spectrum on/before the DFS Tech Sprint's public 12 March "demo day" awards party. - This way, everyone wins … New York and the world is watching, let’s deliver what is deserved over 2021 via innovation that xNY.io can deliver in various forms with DFS regulatory oversight controls. xNY.io’s obvious consequences on the emotional level are associated with economic risks, directly linked to the obligation and respect to the institution of CryptoBanking and/or DFS as the regulatory body from which xNY.io entrepreneurship and innovation are required to interact. Every effort has been made to offer DFS the best possible scenario to advance xNY.io’s successful review while planting the seed for historic contributions to New York State and lead virtual currency CryptoBank innovation worldwide. Ms. Shah, please keep a lookout for xNY.io's updated “conditional” application materials concerning our good natured enterprise for DFS’ corresponding review with hopeful 2021 approval(s). Let nobody stop us. Please let me know if you or the DFS team has any feedback. Wishing you the very best Tech Sprint! All the best, Gunnar Larson On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 6:29 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Ms. Shah: > > I hope you are doing well. > > This memo is to kindly ask for your review and/or reconsideration, and > ultimately seeks the esteemed Superintendent's permission to participate in > the upcoming Tech Sprint and corresponding workshop events beginning next > week. > > My application exceeds the Tech Sprint's participation criteria on various > levels. Further, from our last correspondence on ethics/legal on January > 28th (below), combined with the background of several intro calls with the > DFS team related to excitement of participating in the Tech Sprint, it > seems that perhaps a simple mistake was made on the application's approval. > > *The Tech Sprint focuses on virtual currency innovation concerning > reporting standards:* > > - Please trust with certainty, myself and the xNY.io team hold nothing > more than respect for DFS and understand we are at the will of the > Superintendent. > - Further, I sumit for the Superintendent's consideration, any > institution or organization, which sponsors or conducts a contest or > exhibition (*aka Tech Sprint*), and advertises or bills such contest > or exhibition as a New York state championship contest ("*The event > will end with an awards ceremony to celebrate the winning teams..."*) or > uses the words "New York state" in its announcements ("*https://www.dfs.ny.gov/techsprint > <https://www.dfs.ny.gov/techsprint>"*) is subject to equal rights of > public accommodation. > - Ms. Shah (and, please do correct me if I am mistaken), at base level > standards, civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect > individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social > organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to > participate in the civil and political life of society and the state > without discrimination or repression. > > Given many factors, I am concerned my application being denied to > participate in the Tech Sprint has been a simple mixup as the only > plausible scenario. Today's memo seeks to freely navigate the process of > being granted Tech Sprint participation approval without delay. I would > like to clear this up any confusion on the matter today, if possible. > > Greatly looking forward to hearing your thoughts and approval for the Tech > Sprint's workshop participation. > > Warm regards, > > Gunnar > -- > *Gunnar Larson - www.xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> * > MSc > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> > - Digital Currency > MBA > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> > - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > +1-646-454-9107 > New York, New York 10001 > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:56 PM dfs.sm.DfsNext <DfsNext(a)dfs.ny.gov> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Thank you for your interest in the Techsprint. Unfortunately, at this >> time, we are not able to extend you an invitation to participate. >> >> >> >> Thank you again for applying. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> DFS Next >> >> >> >> >> >> *DFSNext* >> >> >> >> *New York State Department of Financial Services* >> 1 State Street, New York, NY 10004 >> >> www.dfs.ny.gov >> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Shah, Seema (DFS)* <Seema.Shah(a)dfs.ny.gov> > Date: Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:14 PM > Subject: RE: TechSprint > To: Gunnar Larson <gunnar(a)mydr.co> > > > Hi Gunnar, > > > > I would totally appreciate you inviting the folks in your network > mentioned below! You can craft something, but I’m just including a brief > template that you can edit/modify as you see fit. And I don’t handle the > ethics checks, but I really don’t anticipate any challenges coming from > that for anyone. We should have an update on those by next week, so please > stay tuned! > > > > Thanks! > > Seema > > *Seema B. Shah* > > Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Innovation > > seema.shah(a)dfs.ny.gov | www.dfs.ny.gov > > >

1 1

Crypto Loan Platform, Nexo, Freed From Allegations Of Money Laundering
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

https://voi.id/kr/technology/342452 JAKARTA Nexo, one of the world's largest crypto loan platforms, has been acquitted of all charges of money laundering and sanctions violations in Bulgaria. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Bulgaria announced last week that the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office had ended the legal process against Nexo after finding no evidence of criminal activity. Nexo is a company that provides loan and deposit services using crypto assets as collateral. Nexo also offers daily interest of up to 12% per year for crypto assets stored on its platform. Nexo claims to have more than 6 million users worldwide and has processed more than $130 billion (approximately IDR 2,005 trillion) of transactions since its founding in 2018. On September 29 last year, Nexo was the target of an investigation by Bulgarian law enforcement officials over alleged money laundering and sanctions violations. The investigation is based on a report from the Central Bank of Bulgaria (BNB) which considers that Nexo is carrying out banking activities without appropriate permits. According to an announcement from the Attorney General's Office, the investigation involved interviews with witnesses, analysis of payment account movements, complex forensic reports and evaluations, as well as various investigative actions such as investigations and confiscations. However, after conducting an investigation for almost three months, the supervisory prosecutor team found no evidence of a crime committed by Nexo. "The Sofia City Prosecutor's Office has ended the pre-trial process against Nexo and four other people involved in the organized crime group that was formed to seek profit between 2018 and January 2023," the announcement read. "There is no evidence of criminal activity related to the implementation of banking activities without appropriate permits. There is no evidence of money laundering collected against the defendant, and there is no evidence of taxation or computer fraud collected," the announcement continued.

1 0

Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ajVVx6NGB9wd2GDXfLRftf0RVFpqjl8WWITvdNV… March 10, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1, Memo #2 and Memo #3 with our recent inquiry to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #4 aims to associate the malfeasance in Malaysia with war crimes of aggression (in the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression), leveraging the world’s only military divided capital city Nicosia, Cyprus. 1. Additionally, Memo #4 aims to earn the DOJ’s assessment of New York State’s regulatory marketplace manipulation deriving the war crime against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. 2. In this case, the first challenge is to observe and consider the simple idea that the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs alone, through means of regulatory arbitrage naively fails to recognize the ‘cause and effect’ relationship at play at the inception of Memo #4’s assertion of war crimes. 3. Even with the best of intentions, perhaps unknowingly the DOJ may be amplifying the effect of potential war crimes by indirectly supplementing the root cause of the problem and financial model of the Deferred Agreement being self-policing. Mr. Marzulli, there has been an active United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since the 1964 Turkish military invasion and occupation of the northern third of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, while there is broad recognition that the ongoing military presence constitutes occupation of territories that are under Turkish military control. - The graduate education behind Memo #4 is a product of the University of Nicosia’s (UNIC) main campus, located adjacent to the United Nations Buffer Zone that separates the invaded Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004. - Memo #4 is also a product of United Nations consultancy, based at its Manhattan headquarters, where (today, what is now xNY.io - Bank.org) was credited with increasing the breadth and accessibility of reference content from the world’s most important multinational organization. - Memo #4’s subject of war crimes has preeminent association with such projects as the Audio Visual Library of International Law. Over the following sections, Memo #4 will provide a detailed timeline that would constitute real concern of the war crime of aggression yielding the war crime against peace in active war conflict in the world’s only military divided capital, funded from Manhattan Island. The Bank of Cyprus and Illegal Short Selling Irregularities of Turkey’s Markets Mr. Marzulli, turn this matter as we will, and look at it from any side whatsoever, and it presents the appearance of a cross-border act of aggression. Goldman Sachs’ potential disrespect to the Deferred Agreement’s core values has cultivated new crimes that aim to manipulate cross-border war crime regulatory frameworks. - On April 02, 2021 the Financial Times reported that Turkey fined Goldman Sachs over alleged irregularities in short selling, just a week after foreign investors pulled $1.9B from the country’s stock and bond markets. Turkey’s Capital Markets Board said that Goldman Sachs was among 10 securities firms that had placed orders for short selling without proper notification, violating rules enacted previously that temporarily prohibited such transactions. - On April 20, 2021 the CyprusMail (Cyprus’ only English Language daily newspaper) reported Goldman Sachs International acted as Global Coordinators and Dealer Managers in a $330M bond issuance for the Bank of Cyprus. Given the active military conflict in Cyprus, Memo #4 notes that there is one place on the planet you are not supposed to do this sort of thing. Furthermore, the DOJ’s Deferred Agreement with Goldman Sachs may have been tainted with the potential war crime of aggression, risking international peace and the lives of United Nations peacekeepers, while jeopardizing the United States of America’s financial security. Concern of New York Prime Bank Instrument Fraud and Marketplace Manipulation The United States Department of the Treasury warns that Prime Bank Instrument Fraud schemes have attracted significant international attention, since individuals and organizations have lost billions of dollars worldwide. "Prime Bank Instrument Fraud" is the general term given to prime bank fraud schemes that go by many different names. During April 2021, Goldman Sachs could not in good faith (and, plausible deniability) make any reasonable claim of holding a pristine relationship with Turkey’s Central Bank or with Cyprus’ largest financial institutions, given the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and then pending Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America. - Memo #4 suggests that Goldman Sachs developed a Prime Bank Instrument Fraud program to level out yo-yo market dynamics caused by failed marketplace manipulation exercises in Turkey and Cyprus. - Systematic bank fraud and/or marketplace manipulation of any kind between Turkey and Cyprus could constitute the war crime of aggression. - Furthermore, Memo #4 argues that Goldman Sachs may have tried to bambooze governments in New York, Cyprus and Turkey through regulatory arbitrage loopholes, while Goldman seemingly may have not considered the totality of such actions as war crimes. Turkey has the highest inflation in Europe. It has the second-highest rate of inflation among emerging markets, just behind Argentina. It has the 13th highest inflation rate in the world, ranking it between South Sudan and Nigeria. After Goldman Sachs was fined for illegal stock and bond market short selling by the Turkish government, logic would argue further malfeasance potentially could have been avoided by the DOJ’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad investigation. - On April 15, 2021 CNBC reported that Goldman Sachs (note, the previous section’s milestones of April 02, 2021 and April 20, 2021) crucially removed its bias toward Turkey tightening interest rates. Goldman issued guidance highlighting the fact that the bank thought that, “…the removal of the tightening bias against rising inflation expectations suggests that the TCMB (Turkish Central Bank) now has a more dovish reaction function.” - On August 14, 2021 the CyprusMail reported serious concern among economists about data reporting from the Turkish Statistical Institute. Ahmet Takan, a former official with the office of the Turkish prime minister, acted as a whistle blower, warning that Turkey potentially was manipulating inflation data. - On September 1, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs hiked Turkish growth forecasts. Goldman economists issued guidance stating, "Overall, the Turkish economy has been able to grow faster than we thought without a deterioration in its external balances, as the pickup in foreign demand has been very supportive." - On November 30, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs trimed Turkey’s 2022 growth forecast. Goldman Sachs' Murat Unur stated, "We think that the GDP figures released today tell us little about the pace of economic activity going forward as the recent sell-off in the Lira is likely to impact economic activity significantly" Mr. Marzulli, the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs was signed on October 21, 2021. The timeline of events above do not coincide with terms and conditions of the Deferred Agreement mandated by the United States of America. Furthermore, as an international graduate scholars of the world’s only military divided capital on the planet, xNY.io - Bank.org should be protected from any association of crimes against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. War Crimes Against Humanity Mr. Marzulli, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement are impacting our global enterprise. Crimes against humanity can be committed in peacetime as well as during an armed conflict. Even a single act could fall under this exclusion ground provided it forms part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and the act is committed by any person (including a civilian) who had knowledge of the attack and the link of the act to the attack. 1. We are looking to learn more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates as we determine New York State’s role in cross-border bank regulation and corresponding innovation beyond war crimes against humanity. 2. In order to establish whether a war crime or a crime against humanity has been committed, the case officer should consult the relevant international instruments and case law. 3. Crimes against humanity are fundamentally inhumane acts, committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack. Inhumane acts, which could reach this threshold when committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (potentially, New York State bank regulation). 4. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. 5. Furthermore, we have made 28 highlights to the Deferred Agreement providing supporting reference to Memo #4’s overarching premise. xNY.io - Bank.org submits Memo #4 for DOJ consideration of other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Some crimes against humanity would require an additional specific intent, such as Goldman Sachs willfully disrespecting New York State and/or overall peace and security of the United States of America. Memo #1, Memo #2, Memo #3 and Memo #4 outline instances that correspond with the associated definitions of the potential war crimes abroad and jeopardize the future of bank innovation from New York, at great sacrifice to the Homeland. We hope to learn the DOJ’s approach to comment on Memo #4’s subject matter or, without delay refer these concerns to the International Criminal Court and/or International Court of Justice for comment. Respectfully yours with anticipation, Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> | Bank.org <http://bank.org>MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 0

Catch and Kill Protection Rackets: Trump, Weinstein, Epstein and Wall Street
by Gunnar Larson 27 Apr '24

27 Apr '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/04/catch-and-kill-protection-rackets-tr… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 26, 2024 ~ Editor’s Note: This article has been edited and updated from an earlier version, published in 2020. Donald Trump -- Pied Piper to Wall Street (Thumbnail)Trump and Catch and Kill: Yesterday, David Pecker, the former Chairman and CEO of American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid, testified for a third day in the 34-count criminal trial of former President Donald Trump in New York. Pecker continued to expand on the sordid details of a catch and kill operation he had agreed to operate with the active involvement of Trump and his then attorney, Michael Cohen. The operation involved buying up stories about Trump’s salacious affairs with women and then killing them from publication in order to help Trump’s campaign for the presidency in 2016. There was also an understanding that Pecker would run negative articles about Trump’s political opponents in the National Enquirer. During opening arguments in the trial on Monday, Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo explained the case to the jurors as follows: “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.” While Pecker was mapping out more of the slimy details of his catch and kill operation yesterday, shocking news broke that the New York Court of Appeals had overturned the sex crimes conviction of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The court ruled with a 4-3 vote (and scathing dissents) that the trial judge had erred by allowing witnesses to testify about other alleged crimes committed by Weinstein that were not part of the case. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office promised to retry the case. Weinstein, who has been serving time in prison in upstate New York, was also sentenced last year in California to 16 years in prison for rape and sexual assault. That sentence is not impacted by the Appeals court ruling in New York. There have also been allegations in the past of a catch and kill operation to protect Harvey Weinstein. Ronan Farrow and the Harvey Weinstein Investigation: Ronan Farrow has previously cast a harsh light on NBC, suggesting that it may have been involved in a nuanced form of catch and kill during his investigation of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual assaults on women. NBC failed to broadcast Farrow’s story despite having filmed witness interviews. After NBC told Farrow that his story wasn’t reportable, Farrow took it to the New Yorker, where the article was published on October 10, 2017. It won Farrow a Pulitzer Prize in 2018. That article includes allegations of three rapes by Weinstein. Farrow appeared on the MSNBC Rachel Maddow program shortly after his article ran in the New Yorker. Farrow was asked by Maddow why NBC did not air the story. Farrow responded: “I walked into the door at the New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, the New Yorker recognized that and it is not accurate to say that it wasn’t reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.” Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office: Catch and kill is also the only logical way to view what happened to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein at the hands of Alex Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida when Jeffrey Epstein got the sweetheart deal of a lifetime. In July of 2006, the Palm Beach, Florida Police Chief, Michael Reiter, delivered a deeply investigated case against Epstein to the FBI, according to the November 2018 (paywall) intrepid reporting of Julie Brown in the Miami Herald. Brown indicated that it took just eight months of FBI interviews for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Florida to have a 53-page Federal indictment ready to file against Epstein involving sexual assaults against dozens of underage girls. But the indictment was never filed. A deal was worked out by Acosta, and Epstein’s well-connected lawyers. Federal charges were dropped against Epstein and he was allowed to plead guilty to only Florida state charges: one count of soliciting sex from a minor and one count of soliciting sex from an adult woman. Epstein was allowed to serve just 13 months in jail, during which time he was given a work release program to sit in his well-appointed office 12 hours a day, and driven around by his chauffeured limo. The deal was so outrageously constructed that it even denied his dozens of victims knowledge of the terms of the deal. Had Julie Brown not conducted that courageous investigation for the Miami Herald, had the Miami Herald declined to publish it in 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York would not have been embarrassed into bringing the new charges against Epstein on July 8, 2019. Acosta, who had morphed into Trump’s U.S. Labor Secretary, was embarrassed into resigning as a result of the public uproar. JPMorgan’s Catch and Kill Deals with the Department of Justice: On November 19, 2013, the Department of Justice and other regulators settled their mortgage securities fraud case against JPMorgan Chase for an unprecedented $13 billion. One year later, we would learn from Matt Taibbi’s reporting at Rolling Stone that the Justice Department had a highly reliable lawyer-whistleblower that had worked at JPMorgan Chase, Alayne Fleischmann, who had hard evidence that she had warned the bank that it was peddling defective mortgages. The Statement of Facts offered to the public by the DOJ along with the settlement strongly suggested a catch and kill operation. There were none of the typical smoking gun internal emails; there were none of the internal documents showing an intent to defraud; there were none of the documents that Alayne Fleischmann had provided to Justice Department investigators. And there were no names of employees who had engaged in the fraudulent practices. The DOJ and other regulators brought the mortgage fraud case as a civil matter – not a criminal matter. But the following year, in 2014, the DOJ brought two criminal counts against JPMorgan Chase for its role in laundering money for Ponzi kingpin Bernie Madoff. This became the first of a series of deferred-prosecution agreements for criminal charges brought by the DOJ against JPMorgan Chase. These deals functioned very much like catch and kill arrangements. Only the skimpiest of details were released to the public; the bank admitted to the criminal charges but the public was never given the salient details about how the bank and its management carried out the frauds. In November 2016, units of JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay more than $264 million to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in what was widely known as its Chinese “Princeling” scandal. In announcing the settlement in the Princeling scandal in 2016, officials at the Justice Department said this: “The so-called Sons and Daughters Program was nothing more than bribery by another name…Awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption, plain and simple. This case demonstrates the Criminal Division’s commitment to uncovering corruption no matter the form of the scheme… “In this case, JPMorgan employees designed a program to hire otherwise unqualified candidates for prestigious investment banking jobs solely because these candidates were referred to the bank by officials in positions to award business to the bank. In certain instances, referred candidates were hired with the understanding that the hiring was linked to the award of specific business. This is no longer business as usual; it is corruption.” What the case actually demonstrated was the Criminal Division of the DOJ’s willingness to uncover fraud but not prosecute fraud. The DOJ handed JPMorgan a non-prosecution agreement, hammered out by the Big Law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Naturally, this emboldened the bank. It was charged with two more felony counts in 2020 for rigging the precious metals markets and the U.S. Treasury market. And, once again, it was given a deferred-prosecution agreement by the DOJ. Sitting at the helm of the U.S. Department of Justice is the U.S. Attorney General. While on the stand yesterday, David Pecker revealed that in 2018 his publishing company had received a letter from the Federal Election Commission. Pecker testified that he took this letter to mean “We committed a campaign violation.” Pecker said when he shared his concerns with Michael Cohen, that Cohen had indicated he wasn’t worried and said this: “Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and Donald Trump has him in his pocket.” In a CBS interview in December of last year, former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming said this: “One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.” The mushrooming transmutations of catch and kill today involve not just public relations flacks, high-priced lawyers, publishers, and mainstream media. Increasingly, catch and kill includes the highest law enforcement office in the land, the U.S. Department of Justice. Is it any wonder millions of Americans are sleepwalking?

1 1