ReportWire

Tag: financial crimes

  • Credit Suisse client in tax dodge case gets $15 million bail

    Credit Suisse client in tax dodge case gets $15 million bail

    [ad_1]

    Dan Rotta, a Brazilian-American businessman charged with dodging U.S. taxes for decades using accounts at Swiss banks including Credit Suisse, was granted a $15 million bail package on Tuesday. UBS Group AG, which now owns Credit Suisse, has said it’s cooperating with U.S. authorities on the case.

    A Brazilian-American businessman charged with dodging U.S. taxes for decades using accounts at Swiss banks including Credit Suisse Group was granted a $15 million bail package on Tuesday.

    Dan Rotta, 77, who was arrested March 9 at Miami International Airport as he prepared to fly to Barcelona, must remain under house arrest with electronic monitoring, a federal judge in Miami ruled. Prosecutors had sought to keep Rotta locked up, arguing he’s lied to the Internal Revenue Service for 35 years and has a motive to flee the U.S. before his trial on tax charges.

    During the hearing in Miami federal court, prosecutors elaborated on their claims in an arrest complaint that Rotta had hidden more than $20 million from the IRS, using “pseudonyms, complicated corporate structures, and nominees” to conceal offshore assets and income. Rotta has a net worth of $38.5 million, prosecutors told the judge.

    Even before Rotta’s arrest, the Justice Department was weighing whether Credit Suisse breached a 2014 plea agreement in which it paid $2.6 billion, admitted helping thousands of Americans evade taxes, and promised to identify other tax cheats. Rotta hid assets from the the IRS in two dozen secret bank accounts between 1985 and 2020, according to prosecutors.

    Rotta must post 20% of the $15 million bail package or $3 million in cash, and he’s required to place a corporation holding nine properties in escrow, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss ruled. 

    Rotta, a citizen of the U.S., Brazil, and Romania, relied on decades of deception, prosecutors said during the hearing. They said he lied to authorities, shifted money between himself and his cousin in Brazil, and used his passport from Brazil to avoid disclosing his U.S. citizenship to Swiss banks. Prosecutor Sean Beaty told a judge that IRS agents estimate Rotta owes at least $9.25 million in back taxes, $10 million in interest and $6.9 million for a fraud penalty.

    IRS Special Agent James O’Leary, who wrote the arrest affidavit, also testified about the case against Rotta, who recently moved from Fisher Island, Florida, to Aventura. Rotta was charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. and making false statements to the IRS. He faces as many as five years in prison on each count if convicted.

    A spokesperson for UBS Group AG, which now owns Credit Suisse, didn’t respond to a request for comment. In a regulatory filing last month, UBS said: “Credit Suisse AG has provided information to U.S. authorities regarding potentially undeclared U.S. assets held by clients at Credit Suisse AG since the May 2014 plea. Credit Suisse AG continues to cooperate with the authorities.”

    At the hearing, Rotta was shackled in a prisoner’s jump suit, accompanied by a U.S. marshal. He didn’t speak but whispered with his lawyers, jiggled his legs and occasionally shook his head while the government presented its evidence.

    Prosecutors cited another Rotta brush with the law amid a rancorous divorce more than a decade ago. In 2012, a family court judge ordered him to take his 16-year-old son to a Utah boarding school. Instead, Rotta took him to Las Vegas to marry his housekeeper’s 18-year-old daughter, a move which legally emancipated the son. Rotta was convicted of contempt of court and ordered to serve 180 days in jail. 

    O’Leary’s arrest affidavit said that after public reports surfaced in 2008 that UBS was under investigation for helping U.S. taxpayers evade taxes, Rotta closed his account at the bank and moved assets to another Swiss bank. He was a client of Beda Singenberger, a Swiss financial adviser charged a decade ago with helping 60 people in the U.S. hide $184 million in secret offshore accounts with names like Real Cool Investments Ltd. and Wanderlust Foundation.

    In the U.S. tax case, Rotta used entities like a British Virgin Islands corporation called Edelwiss Corporate Ltd. and the Putzo Foundation in Liechtenstein, according to the complaint. The IRS began auditing Rotta in 2011 after obtaining evidence he had unreported foreign financial accounts, and he denied owning them. 

    He claimed that hundreds of thousands of dollars in transfers from foreign accounts were nontaxable loans, and enlisted a cousin from Brazil to tell the IRS he made or facilitated the fake loans, the US said. 

    After the IRS assessed additional taxes and penalties against Rotta, he petitioned the U.S. Tax Court and denied having any foreign accounts. The cousin came to the U.S. to “retell the false loan story to IRS attorneys,” the U.S. said. 

    Rotta settled the Tax Court case with the IRS, which agreed he didn’t owe more taxes or penalties for 2008 through 2010, according to the affidavit. He also settled an audit with the IRS, which said he owed no more taxes or penalties for 2011 through 2013. Both were based on phony documents and fraudulent testimony, the US said.

    In 2019, Rotta tried to make a voluntary disclosure to the IRS to limit his exposure to criminal prosecution and limit his exposure to a potential $10 million penalty. But his application was full of false statements, according to the complaint.  

    The case is US v. Rotta, 24-mj-2479, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Puerto Rico bank linked to bribery scandal hit with $15 million BSA fine

    Puerto Rico bank linked to bribery scandal hit with $15 million BSA fine

    [ad_1]

    Bancrédito International Bank and Trust Corp. “processed millions of dollars in suspicious transactions throughout the United States on behalf of high-risk customers,” the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network says.

    Africa Studio – Fotolia

    A Puerto Rico bank seized earlier this year by regulators will pay a $15 million fine in the first enforcement action under a two-year-old federal rule aimed at closing gaps in anti-money-laundering enforcement.

    Bancrédito International Bank and Trust Corp. — which was placed in receivership this year by banking regulators in the U.S. territory amid a political bribery scandal — agreed to the fine after failing to properly monitor the flow of international funds through it into the U.S. financial system, according to a consent order issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

    Bancrédito “willfully violated” the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations, according to the order, which was made public Friday. The order was signed by Ryan Marín, who became receiver of the bank after it was shut down by the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico in January.

    Marín did not respond to a request for comment.

    Under the order, Bancrédito must surrender its license to operate in the U.S. as an international banking entity and preserve all business records related to BSA compliance.

    Bancrédito violated a BSA regulation known as the “gap rule,” which took effect in March 2021 as part of a regulatory effort to force banks that service international financial institutions to comply with anti-money-laundering rules, according to Fincen.

    Under the rule, international banking entities in Puerto Rico are now required to maintain anti-money-laundering programs similar to the broader banking industry, Candice Basso, a Fincen spokesperson, said in an emailed statement.

    Bancrédito “shirked this obligation,” Basso said in the statement.

    Between 2015 and 2022, Bancrédito inadequately monitored the transfer of funds from accounts linked to a Panamanian bank servicing companies and individuals in Panama and Venezuela, according to the order.

    During this period, the bank also failed to file suspicious activity reports or implement an “adequate” anti-money-laundering program, even after coming under scrutiny from regulators in Puerto Rico, the order states.

    Bancrédito provided “correspondent accounts to foreign financial institutions without the required due diligence and reporting” mandated by the BSA, Fincen Director Andrea Gacki said in a press release announcing the fine.

    “Bancrédito processed millions of dollars in suspicious transactions throughout the United States on behalf of high-risk customers,” Gacki said.

    Bancrédito was founded as an international banking entity in 2008 by Julio Herrera Velutini, who is a citizen of Venezuela and Italy. It provided banking services to foreign financial institutions primarily located in Central America and the Caribbean.

    In August of 2022, Velutini pleaded not guilty to charges of honest services wire fraud and bribery of former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez as part of an attempt to undermine an investigation into Bancrédito that began in 2019 amid Vázquez’s election campaign, according to a U.S. Department of Justice news release at the time and news reports.

    Around the same time, Vázquez was arrested on charges accusing the former governor of accepting campaign bribes.

    Enforcement of the BSA’s gap rule is “a long time coming” for entities such as Bancrédito, which can serve as a “first-line stop for where money gets into the United States,” according to Andrew Bernstein, a white-collar criminal defense lawyer at Armstrong Teasdale who wasn’t involved in the matter.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Stutts

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Holmes Isn’t Fooling Anyone

    Elizabeth Holmes Isn’t Fooling Anyone

    [ad_1]

    Elizabeth Holmes isn’t fooling anyone. Well, almost anyone.

    The convicted fraudster and founder of the defunct medical start-up Theranos, is waiting to begin an 11-year sentence in federal prison. She received this punishment for misleading investors about her lab-in-a-box technology, which she claimed could run hundreds of tests on a few drops of blood. In reality, when Theranos’s Edison device wasn’t exploding, it was delivering unreliable results to frightened patients. Holmes’s fall from grace—she was once the youngest self-made woman billionaire—has been described over and over again. But there’s still a little more blood left in this stone.

    On Sunday, The New York Times ran a profile of Holmes—which included the first interview she’s given since 2016. The author, Amy Chozick, suggests that she was charmed by Holmes, the devoted family woman. Chozick writes that Holmes is “gentle and charismatic,” and “didn’t seem like a hero or a villain. She seemed, like most people, somewhere in between.” This flattering or at least ambivalent tone was not well received. The Axios editor Sam Baker picked the article apart on Twitter. The emergency-medicine physician Jeremy Faust called it “credulous drivel.” Journalists and doctors alike argued that the Times had erred by helping Holmes rehabilitate her image.

    When mistakes happen in the health-care system, doctors try to trace their origin to broken processes. Errors are addressed at the system—not individual—level: If a patient receives an incorrect dose of a medicine, for instance, the blame doesn’t necessarily fall on the nurse who administered it or the physician who prescribed it. The entire drug-delivery process, from pharmacy to bedside, is carefully inspected for unsafe practices. The media—and their content-delivery process—have been going through a similar postmortem over the Theranos debacle. Before John Carreyrou broke the bad news about the company at The Wall Street Journal, reporters were happy to write flattering profiles of Holmes with only the most rudimentary caveats. Even the Journal praised her before it damned her. But the Times’ latest visit to Holmesville suggests that this unsafe practice is still in place.

    As a pathologist—a doctor who specializes in laboratory testing—I’ve been following the Theranos story since the beginning. Holmes’s rise and fall is the most glamorous scandal to hit my field in some time: Most are more body-parts-in-the-back-of-a-pickup than celebrity-stuffed financial crimes. Just last week, I was giving a grand-rounds talk about Theranos. Loopholes in laboratory regulation and widespread ignorance of how blood testing works had caused medical professionals and the public to fall for diagnostic scams, I told the academics in attendance. Toward the end of the lecture, I posed a question: Have the media learned their lesson after enabling Holmes’s charade?

    Much has changed about science reporting in the years since Holmes’s disgrace. I’ve watched the media’s discussion of novel health technologies grow more nuanced and leery. Major news outlets now go out of their way to emphasize the precariousness of early study findings. I’ve been getting more calls from journalists who seek a skeptical perspective on some new lab test or scientific finding. But there are cracks in the media’s armor. The weakest component is the headline: You can still declare all manner of decisive breakthroughs, as long as you append “scientists find” to the title. Another persistent problem is that medical controversies are reported out study by study. Back-and-forth articles about contested areas offer ready-made drama but little clarity. (Masks help prevent COVID; wait, they don’t work at all; never mind, now they do again.) When doctors evaluate the latest research, we recognize that some methods are more reliable than others. Wisdom comes from learning which results to ignore, and scientific consensus changes slowly.

    But journalists’ most stubborn instinct—the one they share with Holmes—is to lean into a good story. It’s the human side of science that attracts readers. Every technical advance must be contextualized with a tale of suffering or triumph. Holmes knew this as well as anyone. She hardly dwelled on how her devices worked—she couldn’t, because they didn’t. Instead, she repeatedly told the world about her fear of needles and of losing loved ones to diseases that might have been caught earlier by a convenient blood test. Of course reporters were taken in. The next entrepreneur to come along and tell a tale like that may also get a sympathetic hearing in the press.

    Holmes understood that almost everyone—journalists, investors, patients, doctors—can be swayed by a pat narrative. She’s still trying to get ahead by telling stories. In offering herself up to the Times as a reformed idealist and a wonderful mother, Holmes adds to a story that was started by her partner, Billy Evans. As part of Holmes’s sentencing proceedings last fall, Evans wrote a multipage letter to the judge pleading for mercy, which was accompanied by numerous photos of Holmes posing with animals and children. “She is gullible, overly trusting, and simply naive,” Evans wrote about one of the great corporate hucksters of our era.

    Journalists are still telling stories about her too, for better or for worse. Holmes is not naive, nor are most readers of The New York Times. While last weekend’s “a hero or a villain” coverage may be said to have betrayed the patients who were harmed by her inaccurate blood tests, and the memory of a Theranos employee who died by suicide, it is also just another entry in the expanded universe of Holmes-themed entertainment. There are books and podcasts and feature-length documentaries. A TV miniseries about Holmes has a score of 89 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. (“Addictively engrossing!” “Consistently entertaining!”) Surely some of those who now bemoan the Times’ friendly treatment have consumed this material for less-than-academic reasons.

    The prosaic details of a convicted cheat’s domestic life aren’t really news, but they are interesting—because the character of Elizabeth Holmes is interesting. So, too, are her continued efforts to spin a narrative of who she is. But with such well-trodden ground, the irony is built right in. You know that Holmes is a scammer. I know it. On some level, The New York Times seems to know it too; the article runs through her crimes and even quotes a friend of Holmes’s who says she isn’t to be trusted. This isn’t character rehabilitation; it’s content. We’re all waiting to see what Liz gets up to next. Have the media learned their lesson? The real test will arrive when the next scientific scammer comes along, and the one after that—when their narrative is still intact, and their fraud hasn’t yet been revealed. At that point, the system for preventing errors will have to do its work.

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Mazer

    Source link

  • Deal to put ex-Wells Fargo executive behind bars sends tough message

    Deal to put ex-Wells Fargo executive behind bars sends tough message

    [ad_1]

    Carrie Tolstedt, who left Wells Fargo in 2016, is scheduled to make her initial appearance in federal court in Los Angeles on April 7. Her plea agreement with federal prosecutors has yet to be approved by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton.

    LOUIS LANZANO/Bloomberg

    For six years, federal prosecutors investigated the Wells Fargo phony-accounts scandal amid a drumbeat of criticism. No big-bank executives went to prison following the 2008 financial crisis, and it didn’t appear that pattern would change anytime soon.

    But last week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles made an unexpected announcement. Carrie Tolstedt, Wells Fargo’s longtime former head of retail banking, agreed to plead guilty to a single felony charge of obstructing a bank examination. The deal calls for a 16-month prison term.

    The plea agreement was a victory for Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, who have emphasized the principle of individual accountability in corporate enforcement cases. It was also a win for bank regulators, signaling to industry executives that there can be severe consequences for misleading bank regulators.

    “This is a stern, stern warning to every senior bank person who could be producing material that the examiners eventually rely on,” said a former Wells Fargo executive who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The criminal case against Tolstedt is part of a coordinated set of actions by multiple federal agencies in response to the fake-accounts scandal.

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced last week that Tolstedt agreed to pay a $17 million fine and accepted a ban from the banking industry in order to resolve civil charges. And the Securities and Exchange Commission said that it has reached a tentative settlement with Tolstedt on separate civil charges.

    “The case filed by the Justice Department — as well as the related administrative action by the OCC and the pending civil lawsuit by the SEC — should put bank executives on notice that obstruction and fraudulent conduct very well may result in a criminal prosecution,” Thom Mrozek, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in an email.

    When asked why the case has taken six years to investigate, Mrozek said: “This was an extremely complex investigation, and the plea agreement is the result of extensive negotiations between the parties.”

    Tolstedt, who left Wells Fargo in 2016, is scheduled to make her initial appearance in federal court in Los Angeles on April 7. Her lawyer, Enu Mainigi, did not respond to a request for comment.

    The plea agreement has yet to be approved by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton. She could impose a sentence that is either shorter or longer than the agreed-upon 16 months, though in the latter scenario Tolstedt could withdraw from the plea agreement, according to Mrozek. The federal sentencing guidelines call for a range of 10-16 months behind bars.

    The obstruction charge that Tolstedt faces stems from a memo that she and other Wells Fargo executives prepared for the risk committee of the bank’s board of directors in May 2015. Even though the memo was written for a board committee, Tolstedt knew that it would also be provided to the OCC, according to the plea agreement.

    Just two weeks earlier, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office had sued the San Francisco bank, alleging that Wells employees engaged in fraudulent conduct in order to meet unrealistic sales quotas.

    The May 2015 memo failed to disclose that an average of at least 1,000 employees per year were either fired or resigned pending investigation in connection with sales abuses, according to the plea agreement. It also omitted the fact that only a very small percentage of the employees whose activity constituted potential sales misconduct were investigated under the bank’s monitoring standard, the plea agreement states.

    Previously filed documents in civil litigation brought by the OCC provide more detail about the contents of the May 2015 memo. For example, the memo failed to state that 1% of employees were terminated annually, even though that figure was contained in prior drafts, according to a report by an OCC examiner in 2020.

    And the May 2015 memo misleadingly stated that there had been a “dramatic reduction in inappropriate practices in the past year” — without noting that assertion stemmed from a time when Wells Fargo paused monitoring for at least seven months — according to the same OCC report.

    Former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf has testified that the memo was misleading. In 2020, Stumpf agreed to pay a $17.5 million fine and a ban from the banking industry in connection with his own role in the fake-accounts scandal.

    Samuel Buell, a Duke University law professor who focuses on corporate crime, said that prosecutors often bring obstruction charges when they are unable to establish that the underlying conduct was criminal.

    But he also said that the type of obstruction to which Tolstedt has agreed to plead guilty — involving efforts to obscure misconduct before a criminal investigation gets opened — is considered more serious than obstruction at a later stage.

    “It sounds like someone who had an awareness that there was a serious underlying problem before there was law enforcement scrutiny and tried to cover it up,” Buell said.

    Obstructing a bank examination is a rarely filed charge, which carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison.

    When the charge has been brought in the past, the defendant has typically been a senior executive at a community bank, according to David Weber, a former enforcement official at the OCC, the SEC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

    Weber speculated that there may be a specific document or witness that made Tolstedt’s lawyer feel that accepting 16 months in prison was preferable to the risk of taking the case to trial.

    If the case had gone to trial, prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolstedt acted “corruptly” in obstructing the examination, which is a high bar for the prosecution to meet.

    Weber said that prosecutors might have been able to charge Tolstedt with making a false entry in the books of a bank, which carries a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison, for the same underlying conduct. That possibility could have motivated Tolstedt to plead guilty to a charge that carries a lesser maximum sentence, he said.

    “My Occam’s razor theory is that they were afraid of a maximum 30-year sentence,” said Weber, who is currently a professor teaching forensic accounting at Salisbury University’s Perdue School of Business.

    Weber said that while Tolstedt would not have been sentenced to 30 years in prison if convicted for making a false entry in the books of a book, the sentence likely would have been more than 16 months.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Wack

    Source link

  • Why Kevin McCarthy Can’t Lose George Santos

    Why Kevin McCarthy Can’t Lose George Santos

    [ad_1]

    The Republican Party has had no better friend than Nassau County in the past few years.

    Of America’s largest counties, few have turned more sharply toward the GOP than New York City’s neighbor to the east. This collection of Long Island suburbs swept Democrats out of local office in 2021, and last fall, Nassau County voted resoundingly Republican in New York’s gubernatorial race. Most important for the national GOP, the county helped elect three Republicans to Congress, including two candidates who flipped Democratic seats in districts that President Joe Biden had carried in 2020.

    Representative George Santos was one of those recent winners, and now Nassau County Republicans are worried that his abrupt fall from grace will cost the GOP far more than the seat that his lies helped the party pick up in November. They want Santos to step down, even though that means his seat would be vacant until a special election later this year, which the Democrats would aggressively contest. Local Republicans are flummoxed that national party leaders, starting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, haven’t joined their united call for Santos to resign. And they see McCarthy’s continued tolerance of Santos as an attempt to hold on to a Republican vote in the near term without enough consideration for whether he’d lose it—and cause Republicans to lose many others—in the longer term.

    “It’s the right thing to do morally, ethically, and politically,” former Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican who represented the district next to Santos’s in the House for 28 years, told me about trying to oust Santos. “If you want to keep controlling the Congress, you can’t just have the short-sighted view that you need his vote next week or next month. You’re gonna lose all the votes in two years when you’re no longer in the majority.”

    With 2024 in mind, and as the list of Santos’s biographical fabrications grows (seemingly by the day), Nassau County’s GOP machine has treated the congressman-for-now as a boil to be lanced.

    “As far as I’m concerned, he’s nonexistent. I will not deal with him. I will not deal with his office,” Bruce Blakeman, the Republican who was elected Nassau County executive in 2021, told me. Last week, Blakeman joined a group of local GOP leaders, including county Republican Party Chairman Joseph Cairo and Representative Anthony Garbarino, in demanding that Santos resign.

    Yet for the moment, the political imperatives of Long Island Republicans no longer align with those of McCarthy, who plainly cannot afford to lose Santos’s vote with such a narrow margin in the House. Santos backed McCarthy in all 15 ballots for speaker earlier this month, and McCarthy’s allies rewarded him with a pair of committee assignments earlier this week. The new speaker said that Santos has “a long way to go to earn trust” but has made no move to sanction him.

    “The voters of his district have elected him. He is seated. He is part of the Republican conference,” McCarthy told reporters last week.

    Democrats have already filed a complaint about Santos with the House Ethics Committee, and he is under investigation by federal and local prosecutors in New York who are reportedly looking into whether he committed financial crimes or violated federal campaign-disclosure laws.

    Santos has defied calls to resign, and McCarthy might need his vote even more should another House Republican, Representative Greg Steube of Florida, miss an extended period of time after he sustained serious injuries from a 25-foot fall off a ladder earlier this week.

    McCarthy’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The National Republican Congressional Committee, which traditionally backs GOP incumbents, echoed McCarthy’s ambivalence toward Santos. “Voters in New York will have the final say on who represents them,” NRCC spokesperson Jack Pandol told me by email. “Rep. Santos will have to earn back their trust as he serves them in Congress.”

    King and others in Nassau County are trying to impress upon McCarthy that the longer he stands by Santos, the more damage he will do to a Republican brand that has been on the rise. “The only reason Kevin McCarthy has the majority is because of the very close marginal seats that Republicans won in New York,” King said. “We can lose all of them in the next election.”

    Even if McCarthy wanted to force Santos out, however, there’s not much he can do. He could try to expel him, but that would take the support of two-thirds of the House, and members of both parties might be leery of setting precedent by kicking out a member who has not been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. King suggested that McCarthy insist on an expedited investigation by the Ethics Committee—the panel’s probes tend to drag on for months—but there’s little history of that either.

    Election to the House “is an unshakable contract for two years,” Doug Heye, a former House GOP leadership aide who has advised lawmakers ensnarled in ethics investigations, told me. “Unless two-thirds of the House say, ‘Get out of here,’ or you give it up yourself, nothing happens.”

    Santos has almost no incentive to leave of his own accord anytime soon, especially now that Long Island Republicans have all but foreclosed the possibility of his winning renomination to his seat. “He’s not going to have a career. He’s not going to have a public life, and he’s going to be ostracized in his own community,” Blakeman told me. Santos was wealthy enough to lend his campaign $700,000. But his present personal finances are, like so much else about his life, a mystery, so he may need the paychecks that come with a $174,000 annual salary. And his seat could be a crucial bit of leverage in potential negotiations with prosecutors, Heye noted; resigning his seat, in that scenario, could help him avoid other penalties, including prison time.

    As his struggle just to get the speakership demonstrated, McCarthy doesn’t exactly have an ironclad grip on his conference. The Republicans from Nassau County seem to realize that the new speaker has limited sway over Santos. But McCarthy’s decision to protect and even validate Santos’s standing inside Congress is at odds with a party clinging both to its House majority and to its precarious stronghold on Long Island. “I’ve dealt with people with all sorts of issues,” Blakeman told me,” and enabling them is not a good thing.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • REDi Launches Fraudforum.org

    REDi Launches Fraudforum.org

    [ad_1]

    Online community for the exchange of information between fraud mitigation specialists at community banks and credit unions

    Press Release


    Oct 4, 2022

    REDi announced the general availability of fraudforum.org today. The site is an exclusive forum for community bank and credit union professionals engaged in card fraud detection and mitigation.

    The private forum provides a secure environment for financial crime professionals to ask questions, get answers, and share information on topics such as vendor selection, fraud trends, and emerging threats, with the goal of reducing risk across their portfolios.

    “Fraud Forum started as an email group where a few of us would exchange ideas and information on the topic of card fraud,” said Fraud Forum founding member and Director of Card Payments at Alabama ONE Credit Union Jackie Davidson. “It came up in a discussion with the team at REDi and they offered to support the initiative by creating the site and opening it to professionals nationwide.”

    “REDi helped launch the site in late 2021 with a small group of test users to validate the concept and assess the value of providing a platform for collaboration,” said VP of Business Development, Aaron Blevins. “Given the positive results, we are ready to offer what we believe is an invaluable resource to help combat fraud in the banking and credit union community.”

    Professionals interested in joining Fraud Forum can apply at www.fraudforum.org.

    About REDI

    REDi provides debit, credit, and prepaid card fraud prevention software solutions that enable automation for key functions and reduce operating risk for more than 100 financial institutions across the United States. 

    About Alabama ONE

    Alabama ONE Credit Union, based in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was chartered in 1951 as the TRW Federal Credit Union. Today, Alabama ONE is a $980+ million-dollar, full-service financial institution currently with 18 branches serving more than 75,000 Members throughout Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, Mobile, Jefferson and 18 other counties, as well as the employees, trustees, retirees, family members and members of the 23 Alabama rural electric cooperatives. Alabama ONE is now a statewide franchise reaching 57 of the 67 counties in Alabama. Alabama ONE provides a unique offering of consumer and business-related products, as well as wealth management and an in-house insurance agency. Alabama ONE is dedicated to giving Members the resources they need to build the strong financial future they deserve.

    Source: REDi

    [ad_2]

    Source link