ReportWire

Tag: scandals

  • Ex-Audi chief pleads guilty in automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    Ex-Audi chief pleads guilty in automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    [ad_1]

    The former head of Volkswagen’s luxury division Audi has pleaded guilty to charges tied to the automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    Rupert Stadler, former CEO of German car manufacturer Audi, sits in a regional court room in Munich, Germany, Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Stadler plans to plead guilty in connection with the ‘Dieselgate’ emissions cheating scandal. This would make him the first CEO of the automotive industry to be convicted in the resulting trials. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, Pool)

    The Associated Press

    FRANKFURT, Germany — The former head of Volkswagen‘s luxury division Audi pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges tied to the automaker’s diesel emissions scandal, becoming the highest-ranking executive convicted over cars that cheated on emissions tests with the help of illegal software.

    Rupert Stadler answered “yes” to a statement read in court by his attorney that said Stadler admitted wrongdoing and regret for his failure to keep rigged cars off the market even after the scandal had become public knowledge, the dpa news agency reported.

    Stadler entered the plea under an agreement with the judge and prosecutors that provides probation instead of jail time and orders him to pay a 1.1 million euro ($1.2 million) fine in return for a thorough admission of guilt.

    Three lower-ranking managers also have taken plea deals in the 2 1/2-year-long trial in Munich.

    Stadler had been charged with fraud and false certification by prosecutors who said he let cars with rigged software be sold after September 2015. That’s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation under the Clean Air Act after discovering the rigged software.

    The software turned on emission controls when the cars were on test stands and turned them off when the cars were on the road. The cars would pass inspection but emitted many times the permitted level of nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that can harm people’s health.

    The scandal cost Volkswagen more than $30 billion in fines and settlements and saw two U.S. executives sent to prison.

    It pushed the entire auto industry away from reliance on diesel engines, which had been almost half the auto market in Europe, and helped accelerate the push into electric vehicles.

    Volkswagen has since become one of the world’s biggest makers of battery-only cars.

    Former VW CEO Martin Winterkorn, who resigned in the wake of the 2015 EPA announcement, has been charged by U.S. and German authorities, but Germany does not generally extradite its citizens to countries outside the European Union. German proceedings against him also have stalled because he is in poor health.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Audi chief pleads guilty in automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    Ex-Audi chief pleads guilty in automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    [ad_1]

    The former head of Volkswagen’s luxury division Audi has pleaded guilty to charges tied to the automaker’s diesel emissions scandal

    Rupert Stadler, former CEO of German car manufacturer Audi, sits in a regional court room in Munich, Germany, Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Stadler plans to plead guilty in connection with the ‘Dieselgate’ emissions cheating scandal. This would make him the first CEO of the automotive industry to be convicted in the resulting trials. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader, Pool)

    The Associated Press

    FRANKFURT, Germany — The former head of Volkswagen‘s luxury division Audi pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges tied to the automaker’s diesel emissions scandal, becoming the highest-ranking executive convicted over cars that cheated on emissions tests with the help of illegal software.

    Rupert Stadler answered “yes” to a statement read in court by his attorney that said Stadler admitted wrongdoing and regret for his failure to keep rigged cars off the market even after the scandal had become public knowledge, the dpa news agency reported.

    Stadler entered the plea under an agreement with the judge and prosecutors that provides probation instead of jail time and orders him to pay a 1.1 million euro ($1.2 million) fine in return for a thorough admission of guilt.

    Three lower-ranking managers also have taken plea deals in the 2 1/2-year-long trial in Munich.

    Stadler had been charged with fraud and false certification by prosecutors who said he let cars with rigged software be sold after September 2015. That’s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation under the Clean Air Act after discovering the rigged software.

    The software turned on emission controls when the cars were on test stands and turned them off when the cars were on the road. The cars would pass inspection but emitted many times the permitted level of nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that can harm people’s health.

    The scandal cost Volkswagen more than $30 billion in fines and settlements and saw two U.S. executives sent to prison.

    It pushed the entire auto industry away from reliance on diesel engines, which had been almost half the auto market in Europe, and helped accelerate the push into electric vehicles.

    Volkswagen has since become one of the world’s biggest makers of battery-only cars.

    Former VW CEO Martin Winterkorn, who resigned in the wake of the 2015 EPA announcement, has been charged by U.S. and German authorities but cannot be extradited to the U.S. German proceedings against him have stalled because he is in poor health.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Head of Japanese entertainment company mired in sex abuse scandal apologizes, promises fix

    Head of Japanese entertainment company mired in sex abuse scandal apologizes, promises fix

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO — The head of a major Japanese boys-group talent agency has released a YouTube video apologizing for the sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by her predecessor and promised to prevent a recurrence.

    Allegations against Johnny Kitagawa, a powerful figure in Japanese entertainment and the founder of Johnny & Associates, have been tossed around for more than 20 years, although he was never charged with crimes. He died in 2019.

    The allegations resurfaced as a hot topic of scrutiny after BBC News did a special earlier this year, focusing on several people who said they were sexually abused.

    “More than anything, I apologize very deeply to the victims,” said a solemn Julie Keiko Fujishima, bowing four times during a one-minute video released late Sunday.

    The scandal has served as a wake-up call for Japan’s lagging fight against sexual harassment. A consumer boycott has begun against Johnny’s, as the company is also known, making for an extensive list, as dozens of the “tarento,” or “talent,” appear in various advertisements. A petition drive expressing outrage has collected thousands of signatures.

    Fujishima apologized for the “disappointment and worries” fans must be feeling. In an additional written statement, she stressed she had not known of any wrongdoing, although acknowledging that was no excuse. Compliance teams and counseling have been set up, she said, while stopping short of lining up an outside third-party investigation.

    According to the allegations, Kitagawa asked fledgling singers and dancers, many of them children, to stay at his luxury home. When he told one of them to go to bed early, everyone knew “it was your turn.”

    That kind of testimony from musician Kauan Okamoto, appearing at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Tokyo last month, raised the level of criticism against Johnny’s. Okamoto was the first accuser who appeared before reporters under his real name to share his story and be photographed.

    He had been part of the backup group Johnny’s Jr., which also worked as a talent pool for Johnny & Associates. The company has under its wing some of Japan’s top actors.

    Fujishima recently met with Okamoto.

    She could not say with certainty whether his allegations were accurate or not. But she sees people are alleging abuse, and such a thing “should never happen again.”

    “We are barely getting started, but he has given us an opportunity to change,” she said.

    Okamoto’s reaction to his first meeting with Fujishima, whom he called “Julie san,” was overwhelmingly positive. It was like talking to a mom, he added. He understood she was genuinely sorry but had privacy and legal concerns.

    Some critics said Fujishima’s apology was not sufficient, the company should hold a news conference, and she should resign to take responsibility.

    Others have slammed mainstream Japanese media for long being silent, suggesting they feared retaliation and losing access to the talent pool. Shukan Bunshun, a weekly magazine, has been an exception, aggressively covering the Johnny’s scandal from the start.

    Japanese entertainers have been facing serious competition from neighboring South Korea, where groups like BTS have met far greater international success. Some Johnny’s stars have been leaving the company over the years, including Okamoto.

    “Everyone should come forward and tell the truth,” Okamoto said in his latest YouTube video.

    He had been afraid of being rejected by Japanese society, when he had simply wanted love, as a person and a musician.

    “It’s not easy to deliver dreams though entertainment and to truly move people,” Okamoto said.

    ___

    Yuri Kageyama is on Twitter https://twitter.com/yurikageyama

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rishi Sunak’s party just took a pounding in UK local elections. The road to recovery is steep | CNN

    Rishi Sunak’s party just took a pounding in UK local elections. The road to recovery is steep | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Many Britons will enjoy the long weekend while celebrating the coronation of King Charles III. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is unlikely to be one of them.

    Instead, he will be pondering a bleak future after watching a dire set of results pour in from a swath of municipal elections held around the country on Thursday. And they made grim viewing for a man hoping to lead his Conservative Party back to power in just over a year’s time at the next UK general election.

    With most of the results declared by early evening on Friday, the Conservatives had lost control of 45 local administrations and shed more than 1,000 councilors.

    Before Thursday’s votes, the Conservatives had been in expectation management mode, briefing journalists they would lose heavily in areas that had been in Conservative hands for years. Presumably, party officials had hoped privately that it wouldn’t be as bad as that.

    The main opposition Labour Party could barely conceal its glee – the results would translate to a nine-point national lead according to PA Media. Labour boasted that the results show it would not just beat Sunak at the next election, but do so decisively.

    The task ahead of Sunak is a daunting one. At most, he has until January 2025 – the last date he can legally hold an election – to turn things around. In reality, he hopes to hold the vote in the fall of next year.

    The British economy is in big trouble after 13 years of Conservative government. Some of the reasons for this have been out of the government’s hands. But it was ultimately various iterations of this government that decided to erect punitive post-Brexit trade borders with Europe and propose unfunded tax cuts that caused the pound to tank.

    Public services, including the much-loved National Health Service, are in a dire state. It can take weeks to arrange an appointment with your doctor and months to get a vital medical procedure.

    Teachers, doctors, nurses, train drivers and workers in many other services have held strikes over pay and working conditions, with polls consistently showing that the public thinks the government is handling negotiations with unions poorly.

    Immigration, one of the hottest issues in British politics for decades, is making headlines almost daily as an increasing number of migrants arrive in the UK on small boats, often arranged by criminal human trafficking gangs.

    Against this backdrop, taxes are at their highest in decades and trust in Sunak’s party is low.

    Fixing everything before the election is a tall order on its own. What Sunak must also do, if he’s to turn things around in just over a year, is stop his party from tearing itself apart.

    With nearly three-quarters of results declared by late afternoon on Friday, the Conservatives had shed 35 local authorities and more than 600 councilors.

    The blame game for Conservative woes started last summer after its lawmakers forced Boris Johnson out of office after months of scandals – including the notorious “Partygate” scandal when officials in Downing Street were revealed to have held parties that broke Covid-19 restrictions.

    Johnson loyalists insist it was a grave mistake to have removed him from office. They claim Johnson was responsible for the party winning a parliamentary majority in the 2019 general election, a victory they regard as his personal mandate. They argue that removing a man they see as the Conservative’s biggest electoral asset has blown up credibility the party might have with the public. And they blame those who ultimately made Johnson’s position untenable – including Sunak, whose resignation from Johnson’s Cabinet was arguably the final nail in his coffin – for the current mess.

    The anti-Johnson cohort, meanwhile, think he trashed the reputation of the party while in office.

    Partygate created the perception that the government, led by Johnson, didn’t believe the pandemic rules applied to people running the country. While Sunak and Johnson both received fines after a police investigation, Sunak emerged relatively unscathed.

    There were other scandals on Johnson’s watch – from his personal financial arrangements to cronyism – that created a stench of sleaze around the Conservatives that Sunak has struggled to shake off.

    These two main factions both agree that the short premiership of Liz Truss, who succeeded Johnson last summer but only managed to stay in office for 45 days, has done real damage to the Conservatives’ main electoral selling point: economic credibility. She proposed unfunded spending and tax cuts that caused the pound to fall to its lowest against the dollar since 1985, and did not survive the ensuing fallout.

    The main opposition Labour Party could barely conceal its glee at the results -- it is projected to have won a nine-point lead, according to PA Media.

    Suank’s loyalists point out that Truss was team Johnson’s preferred candidate, but almost everyone in Westminster has distanced themselves from her short tenure.

    Ahead of this latest set of local elections, there was concern among some in the party that poor results might cause for loud calls from the right of the party for someone to challenge Sunak. There are people who sincerely believe Johnson returning ahead of the next election would give them the best chance at victory.

    However, these people are now a minority and Johnson has gone off grid, earning huge amounts of money giving speeches and writing books. But that doesn’t mean his supporters cannot still cause problems for Sunak.

    Next week, a group of Conservatives broadly from the Johnson wing of the party will meet at a conference organized by the Conservative Democrat Organisation. Speakers include three of Johnson’s most loyal Cabinet ministers and one of his biggest financial supporters.

    They are, it is commonly accepted, a group that believes Johnson was kicked out of office unfairly and that Sunak was imposed on them and their grassroots members by the big cheeses of the Conservative Party. Most of them have said publicly in the months since Johnson resigned that they wish he was still PM.

    Right now, most of the party seems to be on message. They are downplaying the local elections and pointing out that Labour would still need a swing bigger than Tony Blair achieved in 1997 to win a majority of just one seat. They also believe that Sunak’s rise in popularity is down to the relative stability he has brought since taking over from Truss.

    But if polls don’t improve dramatically, Sunak should start looking over his shoulder. The Conservative Party has developed a taste for regicide since 2016. If the economy fails to improve, if he can’t live up to his promise to “stop the boats” of migrants and if Conservative members of parliament start to fear they will suffer the same fate as those who lost their jobs in these elections, then it’s not a giant leap from mild concern to panic – and calls for a new way forward before the party is booted from power.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Peru’s ex-president returned home to face corruption charges

    Peru’s ex-president returned home to face corruption charges

    [ad_1]

    LIMA, Peru — Former President Alejandro Toledo arrived in Lima Sunday after being extradited from the United States to face charges he allegedly received millions of dollars in bribes in a giant corruption scandal that has ensnared four of Peru’s ex-presidents.

    Toledo, who was Peru’s president from 2001 to 2006, had surrendered to U.S. authorities on Friday, ending a yearslong legal battle against his extradition, which started in 2019 when he was arrested at his home in Menlo Park, California.

    Police and officials from Peru’s prosecutor’s office received Toledo, 77, at Lima’s airport early Sunday. Police released a photo of Toledo, looking disheveled, accompanied by agents. He was transferred to a court in Lima’s historic center.

    Peru’s former president will serve 18 months of preventative detention while he is investigated for allegedly taking at least $20 million in bribes from Odebrecht, a giant Brazilian construction company that has admitted to U.S. authorities that it bribed officials to win contracts throughout Latin America for decades. Toledo has denied the charged.

    After his arrest in California, he was initially held in solitary confinement at the Santa Rita Jail about 40 miles (60 kilometers) east of San Francisco but was released in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and his deteriorating mental health. He was held under house arrest after that.

    He had sought a stay on his extradition, pending a legal challenge to the U.S. State Department’s decision to send him back to Peru, but a court of appeals denied his latest motion and a federal judge ordered him to surrender.

    Toledo had been living in California since 2016 when he returned to Stanford University, his alma mater, as a visiting scholar to study education in Latin America.

    Prison officials in Peru have not decided where Toledo will be held but have said it could be the prison that already holds ex-president Alberto Fujimori (1990 -2000) and ex-president Pedro Castillo (2021-2022). Fujimori is serving a 25-year prison sentence for his role in the murders of 25 Peruvians during his administration. Castillo is being held in pretrial detention while being investigated for rebellion in attempting to dissolve Parliament in 2022.

    He is one of four ex-presidents linked to the Odebrecht corruption scandal that has shaken Peru’s politics, with nearly every living former president now on trial or under investigation.

    Former President Ollanta Humala is standing trial on charges that he and his wife received over $3 million from Odebrecht for his presidential campaigns in 2006 and 2011. Both have denied any wrongdoing.

    Ex-leader Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who left office in 2018, is under house arrest for similar charges.

    Former leader Alan García, in office from 2006-2011, fatally shot himself in the head in 2019 as police arrived at his home to arrest him.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas? | CNN

    Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas? | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.” Follow him @DeanObeidallah@masto.ai. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    On Monday, the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee — chaired by Donald Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan — is set to hold a field hearing in New York City called “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.” A statement bills the hearing as an examination of how, the Judiciary Committee says, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies have “led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”

    In response, Bragg’s office slammed Jordan’s hearing as “a political stunt” while noting that data released by the New York Police Department shows crime is down in Manhattan with respect to murders, burglaries, robberies and more through April 2, compared with the same period last year.

    In reality, this Jordan-led hearing isn’t about stopping crime but about defending Trump — who was recently charged by a Manhattan grand jury with 34 felonies. Trump pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges stemming from an investigation into a hush-money payment to an adult film actress. The former president also is facing criminal probes in other jurisdictions over efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Bragg sued Jordan and his committee last week in federal court, accusing the Judiciary Committee chairman of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” his office for its investigation and prosecution of Trump by making demands for confidential documents and testimony.

    While Jordan and his committee appear focused on discrediting the investigation into Trump, why aren’t they looking into two recent bombshell reports by ProPublica that raised red flags about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial relationship with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow? After all, the House Judiciary Committee’s website explains that it has jurisdiction over “matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts” – for which the revelations concerning Thomas fit perfectly.

    First, we learned in early April that Crow had provided Thomas and his wife, Ginni, for decades with luxurious vacations including on the donor’s yacht and private jet to faraway places such as Indonesia and New Zealand. That information was never revealed to the public. (In a rare public statement, Thomas responded he was advised at the time that he did not have to report the trips. The justice said the guidelines for reporting personal hospitality have changed recently. “And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” he said.)

    Then on Thursday, ProPublica reported that Thomas failed to disclose a 2014 real estate deal involving the sale of three properties he and his family owned in Savannah, Georgia, to that same GOP megadonor, Crow. One of Crow’s companies made the purchases for $133,363, according to ProPublica. A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires Supreme Court justices and other officials to make public the details of most real estate sales over $1,000.

    As ProPublica detailed, the federal disclosure form Thomas filed for that year included a space to report the identity of the buyer in any private transaction, but Thomas left that space blank. Four ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ failure to report it appears to be a violation of the law. (Thomas did not respond to questions from ProPublica on its report; CNN reached out to the Supreme Court and Thomas for comment.)

    The House Judiciary Committee has long addressed issues such as those surrounding Thomas. In fact, the committee is where investigations and the impeachment of federal judges often commence.

    One recent example came in 2010 with Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., whom the committee investigated and recommended for impeachment.

    The committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment said evidence showed Porteous “intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.” The Senate later found Porteous guilty of four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench.

    Yet the Judiciary Committee has neither released statements nor tweets raising alarm bells about Thomas. Instead, its Twitter feed is filled with repeated tweets whining that C-SPAN won’t cover Monday’s New York field hearing. Worse, the committee retweeted GOP Rep. Mary Miller’s tweet defending Thomas as being attacked “because he is a man of deep faith, who loves our country and believes in our Constitution.”

    Jordan’s use of his committee to assist Trump should surprise no one. The House January 6 committee’s report called the Ohio Republican “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the election. The report detailed the lawmaker’s efforts to assist Trump including on “January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session.” As a result, the January 6 committee subpoenaed Jordan to testify — but he refused to cooperate.

    In contrast with the House panel, the Senate Judiciary Committee — headed by Democrats — announced in the wake of the reporting on Thomas that it plans to hold a hearing “on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards.” Beyond that, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia sent a letter Friday calling for a referral of Thomas to the US attorney general over “potential violations of the Ethics in Government Act 1978.”

    The House Judiciary Committee’s website notes, “The Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives.” Under Jordan that description needs to be updated to state that the Committee on the Judiciary is now “the lawyer for Donald J. Trump.” And the worst part is that the taxpayers are the ones paying for Jordan’s work on Trump’s behalf.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musician Kauan Okamoto alleges talent manager assaulted him

    Musician Kauan Okamoto alleges talent manager assaulted him

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO — When Johnny Kitagawa told one of the boys staying at his luxury house to go to bed early, everyone knew “it was your turn.”

    That was among the recollections shared Wednesday by musician Kauan Okamoto, then 15, about allegedly being sexually assaulted by Kitagawa, a powerful figure in the Japanese entertainment world. The Associated Press does not usually identify victims of alleged sexual assault, but Okamoto has chosen to identify himself in the media.

    Okamoto was part of the backup boys’ group Johnny’s Jr., which also worked as a talent pool for Johnny & Associates, a talent agency managing male idol actors and singers.

    He remembered the sound of Kitagawa’s slippers pitter-pattering down the hallway. He turned over in bed, feigning sleep. Sometimes Kitagawa handed him a 10,000-yen ($100) bill the morning after when no one was looking, like in the elevator, according to Okamoto.

    That continued for four years, starting in 2012 and lasting until Okamoto left Johnny & Associates.

    Okamoto’s encounters with Kitagawa started when he had a modeling agency send a video of him singing Justin Bieber’s “Baby” to a manager at Kitagawa’s office. He got invited to a concert in Tokyo, and then to Kitagawa’s home.

    “I hope everyone will come forward because it is an outrageous number of victims,” he told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Tokyo.

    Okamoto, 26, estimated dozens of people were selected by Kitagawa as his “favorites” — the ones he saw as talented — to come stay at his home where the alleged abuse occurred. The scandal surfaced after a BBC documentary “Predator,” in which several victims came forward, aired worldwide in March.

    Kitagawa died in 2019 and was never charged.

    Shukan Bunshun, a Japanese news magazine, first reported the scandal in 1999. Over the years, the reaction from much of mainstream Japanese society has been muted. Johnny’s, which still exists as a company, is behind some of Japan’s biggest stars, including SMAP, KinKi Kids and Arashi.

    Okamoto said he had not considered legal action. He just hoped his story will get acknowledged.

    “These are facts. Instead of denying these facts, I hope people will respect and support us,” he told reporters.

    The Foreign Correspondents Club invited Johnny’s to come speak and address the allegations but received no response. Johnny’s also did not respond to a request by The Associated Press for comment.

    Being liked by Kitagawa was a must if one hoped to succeed in Japanese entertainment, and many young performers wanted to be invited to his penthouse in the Shibuya ward of Tokyo, Okamoto said.

    Okamoto said he owed a lot to Kitagawa, whom he called “Johnny-san,” always adding the honorific. Like many of the other victims, he didn’t tell his parents, nor blatantly reject Kitagawa.

    “We were kids. We just laughed about it,” said Okamoto.

    ___

    Yuri Kageyama is on Twitter https://twitter.com/yurikageyama

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man agrees to plead guilty in Basquiat artwork fraud scheme

    Man agrees to plead guilty in Basquiat artwork fraud scheme

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A former Los Angeles auctioneer has agreed to plead guilty in a cross-country art fraud scheme where he created fake artwork and falsely attributed the paintings to artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.

    The paintings ultimately wound up at the Orlando Museum of Art in Florida before they were seized by federal agents last year in a scandal that roiled the museum and led to its CEO’s departure after he threatened an art expert and told her to “shut up.”

    Basquiat, a Neo-expressionist painter whose success came during the 1980s, lived and worked in New York before he died in 1988 at age 27 from a drug overdose. The Orlando Museum of Art scandal came in 2022 when a federal raid ended in the seizure of 25 paintings whose authenticity had been in question for a decade. The museum had been the first to display the artwork, and its former director had previously insisted the artwork was legitimate.

    Defendant Michael Barzman, 45, was charged Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles with making false statements to the FBI during an interview last year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a news release. He has agreed to plead guilty and faces up to five years in prison.

    Barzman’s court date has not been scheduled. Barzman admitted that he and another man, identified only as “J.F.” in court papers, had created the bogus paintings and agreed to split the sales’ proceeds.

    “Mr. Barzman was drowning in medical debt after battling cancer for decades,” his attorney Joel Koury said in a statement Tuesday. “In desperation, he participated in this scheme because he was afraid of losing his health insurance. Since then, he has cooperated and done everything asked of him to compensate for his poor judgement.”

    Mark Elliott, the chairman of the Orlando museum’s board of trustees, said in a statement that the museum “has recommitted itself to its mission to provide excellence in the visual arts with its exhibitions, collections, and educational programming” in the wake of the scandal.

    Barzman admitted to the FBI — after repeated denials in interviews with federal agents, leading to Tuesday’s felony charge — that he made a false provenance for the paintings by claiming in a notarized document that they had been found in television writer Thad Mumford’s storage locker.

    Barzman previously ran an auction business where he bought and resold the contents of unpaid storage units. He bought Mumford’s locker in 2012.

    Mumford, who died in 2018, told investigators he had never owned any Basquiat art, and the paintings were not in the unit the last time he had opened it.

    Experts pointed out that the cardboard used in at least one of the pieces included FedEx typeface that wasn’t used until 1994, about six years after Basquiat died, according to a federal search warrant. The artwork had been marketed as painted in 1982.

    Barzman and “J.F.” would make the paintings on cardboard with various materials and then “age” them outdoors so the artwork would look like it was painted in the 1980s, according to Barzman’s plea agreement.

    But on the back of one of the paintings seized from the Orlando museum, a crucial clue remained: A mailing label bearing Barzman’s name, painted over.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reiterates call to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas over trips with GOP donor | CNN Politics

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reiterates call to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas over trips with GOP donor | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York reiterated on Sunday her call for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas following revelations that he didn’t disclose several luxury trips subsidized by a Republican megadonor.

    In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” Ocasio-Cortez called for an inquiry into the matter, saying it was “the House’s responsibility to pursue that investigation in the form of impeachment.”

    “I believe that we should pursue the course. And if it is Republicans that decide to protect those who are breaking the law, then they are the ones who then are responsible for that decision,” she said of the House GOP majority, which would be unlikely to pursue such an investigation. “But we should not be complicit in that.”

    Ocasio-Cortez first called for Thomas’ impeachment on Twitter on Thursday following a bombshell ProPublica report that detailed his travel paid for by Republican donor Harlan Crow, which included trips on the donor’s yacht and private jet.

    Thomas said Friday that he did not disclose the luxury travel because he was advised at the time that he did not have to report it.

    In a rare statement sent via the Supreme Court’s public information office, Thomas said that the trips he and his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, took with the Crows were the “sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” that he was advised did not require disclosure.

    Two dozen Democratic lawmakers from both chambers sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, calling for a “swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation” into whether ethics rules and laws were violated by Thomas’ trips.

    But Ocasio-Cortez said she did not have faith in the Supreme Court to conduct an internal investigation, saying, “what we are seeing right now is a breaking of the law.”

    The ProPublica report describes Thomas accepting travel hospitality from Crow that included lavish trips to Indonesia, New Zealand, California, Texas and Georgia. Some of the trips reportedly included travel on Crow’s super yacht or stays at properties owned by Crow or his company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK criticized for failures in Windrush immigration scandal

    UK criticized for failures in Windrush immigration scandal

    [ad_1]

    A civil rights group is urging U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to follow through on promises made to thousands of people of Caribbean descent who were wrongly targeted as illegal migrants in the so-called Windrush scandal

    ByBRIAN MELLEY Associated Press

    LONDON — A civil rights group urged U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Thursday to follow through on promises made to thousands of people of Caribbean descent who were wrongly targeted as illegal migrants in the so-called Windrush scandal that emerged five years ago.

    The Black Equity Organisation submitted a petition signed by more than 50,000 people that criticized the “painfully slow” response by the government and the decision by Home Secretary Suella Braverman to scrap several recommendations for immigration agency improvements that her predecessor accepted.

    “We urge your government to stick to the promises made — there is still an opportunity to show that you and your ministers are serious about righting past wrongs,” a letter to Sunak said. “To do anything less sends a clear message that the suffering of the Windrush generation was in vain and the hostile environment still exists.”

    The group is named for the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought the first 500 Caribbean migrants to British shores in 1948 to help rebuild after World War II. Tens of thousands of migrants from the region who arrived legally in the U.K. until 1973 later found themselves facing a government crackdown on illegal immigrants.

    Scores lost jobs, homes and the right to free medical care because they didn’t have the paperwork to prove their status. Some were detained and others deported.

    After British news media uncovered the scandal in 2018, the government apologized and offered compensation, but the group said payments are inadequate for the harm done and the process is “bureaucratic and overly complicated.”

    “It is unconscionable that some Windrush victims who should have been compensated died before their cases were resolved and payments made,” the group said. “Many others are still fighting to receive their payments.”

    The Home Office said it remains “committed to righting the wrongs of Windrush” and has paid or offered more than 64 million pounds ($80 million) to people affected.

    A government watchdog in 2020 found “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness” were partly to blame for the scandal and made 30 recommendations to improve the office overseeing immigration.

    Braverman said in January that she said she would scrap two recommendations that would increase independent scrutiny of migration policies and a third to hold reconciliation events with Windrush survivors.

    The Conservative government has been under fire from human rights groups for its controversial migration bill that would bar asylum claims by anyone who reaches the U.K. by unauthorized means and would deport migrants back home or to a third country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone

    Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone

    [ad_1]

    Though far from the only U.S. president dogged by legal and ethical scandals, Donald Trump now occupies a unique place in history as the first indicted on criminal charges.

    Two others, like Trump, found themselves impeached by Congress — Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern, and Andrew Johnson for pushing the limits of his executive authority in a bitter power struggle following the Civil War.

    Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace over his role in the infamous Watergate break-in. And Ronald Reagan and Ulysses S. Grant both became forever tied to scandals in which close aides got prosecuted, though neither president was ever charged.

    Here’s a look at how Trump’s predecessors fared:

    BILL CLINTON

    Clinton spent more than half his presidency under scrutiny in investigations that ranged from failed real estate deals to the Democratic president’s affair with a White House intern.

    Investigators took a lengthy look into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investments in the troubled Whitewater real estate venture. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, appointed to oversee the investigation in 1994, turned up no evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons. But two of their close associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, ended up convicted of Whitewater-related charges. So did Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton’s successor as governor of Arkansas.

    Starr’s 1998 report packed with lurid details of Clinton’s affair with intern Monica Lewinsky proved far more damaging. While being questioned in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, Clinton had denied having “sexual relations” with Lewinsky.

    Starr concluded that Clinton had lied under oath and obstructed justice. That led to the House voting to impeach Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998. He was acquitted by the Senate, allowing him to remain in office until his term ended in January 2001.

    RONALD REAGAN

    Reagan never faced impeachment or court charges for the biggest scandal of his presidency. But the arms-for-hostages scheme that became known as the Iran-Contra affair dogged him long after he left the White House.

    In 1986, during Reagan’s second term, the public learned that his administration had authorized secret arms sales to Iran while seeking Iranian aid in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon. As much as $30 million from the arms sales was diverted, in violation of U.S. law, to aid rebels fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua.

    Reagan’s national security adviser, John Poindexter, resigned and an aide, Lt. Col. Oliver North, was fired. Both were also convicted of crimes stemming from efforts to deceive and obstruct Congress. Their convictions were later overturned. President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, pardoned six others involved.

    Reagan insisted money from the arms sales was funneled to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels without his knowledge.

    RICHARD NIXON

    Nixon resigned from office in August 1974 rather than face impeachment for his administration’s cover-up of its involvement in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington.

    The bungled burglary at the Watergate office building resulted in the indictment of seven men, including two former White House aides. Five of the Watergate defendants pleaded guilty; two were convicted in criminal trials.

    Intrigue over the 1972 Watergate break-in didn’t stop Nixon from cruising to reelection a few months later. He endured the storm until the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment accusing him of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.

    Before the full House could vote, a bombshell tape recording was released in which Nixon could be heard approving a plan to pressure the FBI to drop its Watergate investigation. Nixon resigned after losing support from key congressional Republicans.

    His vice president, Gerald Ford, became president and pardoned Nixon a month later.

    ULYSSES S. GRANT

    While never personally charged with crimes or formally accused of wrongdoing, Grant as president torpedoed a corruption case prosecuted by his own administration. The man on trial was Grant’s personal secretary in the White House.

    In 1875, an investigation launched by Treasury Secretary Benjamin H. Bristow resulted in hundreds of arrests in a scheme known as the Whiskey Ring, in which distillers, revenue agents and fellow conspirators diverted millions of dollars in liquor taxes to themselves.

    The Civil War general-turned-president found himself at odds with the crackdown when Gen. Orville E. Babcock ended up charged as a conspirator. Not only was Babcock the president’s personal secretary, but he and Grant had also been friends since the war.

    Prosecutors said they had uncovered telegrams Babcock sent to ringleaders to assist their scheme. Regardless, Grant insisted on testifying in his aide’s defense.

    To avoid the spectacle of the president appearing at Babcock’s trial, attorneys questioned Grant under oath at the White House on Feb. 12, 1876. A transcript of his testimony was later read in court in St. Louis. The jury acquitted Babcock, a decision largely credited to Grant’s unwavering defense.

    ANDREW JOHNSON

    The first American president to have his legacy tarnished by impeachment, Andrew Johnson’s woes arose from his intense feuding with Congress over Reconstruction following the Civil War.

    The Tennessee Democrat had been elected vice president in 1864 as part of a unity ticket with Abraham Lincoln, and Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s 1865 assassination. From the White House, Johnson called for pardoning Confederate leaders and opposed extending voting rights to freed Blacks, infuriating congressional Republicans.

    It was Johnson’s firing of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, a Lincoln appointee who favored tougher policies toward the defeated South, that prompted the House to pass articles of impeachment that accused the president of ousting and replacing Stanton illegally.

    Johnson’s impeachment trial began in the Senate on March 5, 1868. It ended more than two months later, with senators just one vote short of removing Johnson from office. He served the remainder of his final year, but fellow Democrats denied him their nomination to run again.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Challenger wins close race to lead United Auto Workers union

    Challenger wins close race to lead United Auto Workers union

    [ad_1]

    DETROIT — A challenger defeated the president of the United Auto Workers in a close election and vowed Saturday to take a more confrontational stance in negotiating with the big automakers.

    A court-appointed monitor declared challenger Shawn Fain the winner over incumbent Ray Curry. Fain’s slate of candidates won control of the big union, as workers rejected most incumbents in the wake of a bribery and embezzlement scandal

    It was the 372,000-member union’s first direct election of its 14-member International Executive Board, which came in the wake of the wide-ranging scandal that landed two former presidents in prison.

    The vote count had been going on since March 1, and the outcome was uncertain going into Saturday because of challenges against several hundred ballots.

    Curry had filed a protest alleging election irregularities and campaign-financing violations. But he conceded Saturday and said Fain would be sworn in on Sunday.

    Fain said members clearly wanted the union to become more aggressive in dealing with the auto makers.

    “Today we put the companies on notice the fighting UAW is back,” Fain said in a video.

    Fain vowed to end two-tiered contracts that provide lower pay and fewer benefits for some workers. He said the UAW will fight against factory closures that result in lost union jobs.

    “We’ve seen plant after plant close without any serious fight from our union,” he said. “We’ve lost 40% of our active membership over the past 20 years. That ends here.”

    Fain also promised to clean up the union.

    Fain, 54, now an administrator with the international union in Detroit, had 69,459 votes, or 50.2%, while Curry had 68,976 votes, or 49.8%, according to an unofficial tally as the counting neared completion.

    Earlier, Curry had asked court-appointed monitor Neil Barofsky to hold another runoff election because of the alleged irregularities, but Barofsky denied the request.

    Fain’s UAW Members United slate now holds seven of 14 seats on the board, with one independent member siding with his slate. The Curry Solidarity Team slate has six board members. Four of five top officers are from Fain’s slate, including the secretary-treasurer and two of three vice presidents.

    The new leadership will have to move quickly to gear up for what are expected to be contentious contract talks coming up this summer with Detroit’s three automakers, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis.

    Many in the industry expect strikes against the companies by the union.

    Fain will have little time to prepare for the union’s bargaining convention, which is scheduled to start Monday in Detroit. Delegates to the convention decide what the union will want in upcoming contract talks.

    In the past, contracts with the Detroit Three set the standard for manufacturing wages nationwide. Fain’s statement said he wants to return to the union setting the wage and benefit standard for other sectors of the economy.

    Fain and his slate will have to deal with member demands to restore concessions made when the automakers were headed into financial trouble starting in 2007. Many want cost-of-living pay raises, general raises, defined-benefit pensions for all workers, and eliminating tiers of workers so they all get the same pay and benefits.

    Automakers prefer annual profit-sharing checks instead of raises so they pay workers when times are good and can cut expenses during economic downturns.

    In a February draft of a transition plan, Fain wrote about a big shakeup coming in his first 30 days in office. Jobs will change, and new things will be expected of workers, some of whom will leave, it said.

    “Everything we do, at every stage, must be reinforcing the message: there is a new sheriff in town,” Fain’s memo said.

    The memo talks about a campaign to prepare workers for strikes.

    Mike Booth, one of the new vice presidents, said the automakers are starting to argue that they are financially strapped because they have to fund the development of new electric vehicles. “You can’t develop an electric vehicle product on the backs of UAW members,” he said.

    Strikes are possible as the union pushes to organize joint-venture battery plants being built by the companies, and to reverse a Stellantis decision to begin closing a plant in Belvidere, Illinois. Under Curry’s leadership for nearly the past two years, the UAW has taken a more aggressive stance in labor talks, having gone on strike against Volvo Trucks, John Deere, the University of California and CNHI, a maker of agricultural and construction equipment.

    When asked about new UAW leadership on Friday, Ford CEO Jim Farley said his company gets along with the union. “Whomever is leading the UAW, we’ll have a great relationship with, and we’ll work hard to improve our industry … We’ll welcome whoever leads UAW,” he said.

    Curry, who was not part of the scandal, was elected to the UAW’s top post by the executive board in June 2021.

    The leadership change came after union members decided to directly vote on leaders for the first time in the union’s 87-year history. Under the old system, leaders were picked by delegates to a convention who were selected by local union offices. The new slate of officers was picked by the current leadership, and rarely was there serious opposition.

    The direct voting came after 11 union officials and a late official’s spouse pleaded guilty in the corruption probe, including the two former presidents who were sentenced to prison. The first criminal charges in the probe were filed in 2017.

    To avoid a federal takeover, the union agreed to reforms and Barofsky’s appointment to oversee the UAW and elections of the executive board.

    ____

    This story has been corrected to say that it was Shawn Fain, not Ray Curry, who said he wants to return to the United Auto Workers setting the wage and benefit standard for other sectors of the economy.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee, and David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Challenger claims win in race to lead United Auto Workers

    Challenger claims win in race to lead United Auto Workers

    [ad_1]

    The challenger in the race for the United Auto Workers’ top leadership post claimed victory Saturday in a close election that is likely to give his slate of candidates control of the huge union

    ByTOM KRISHER AP Auto Writer

    DETROIT — The challenger in the race for the United Auto Workers’ top leadership post claimed victory Saturday in a close election that is likely to give his slate of candidates control of the huge union.

    In a statement, challenger Shawn Fain’s slate said that a federal court-appointed monitor has declared Fain the winner over incumbent Ray Curry. A message was left Saturday seeking confirmation from monitor Neil Barofsky.

    It was the 372,000-member union’s first direct election of its 14-member International Executive Board, which came in the wake of a wide-ranging bribery and embezzlement scandal that landed two former presidents in prison.

    The statement from Fain’s slate said he leads Curry by 483 votes, greater than the number of challenged ballots that remain.

    The count has been going on since March 1, and Curry has filed a protest alleging election irregularities and campaign financing violations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Boris Johnson faces high-stakes ‘Partygate’ grilling by UK lawmakers | CNN

    Boris Johnson faces high-stakes ‘Partygate’ grilling by UK lawmakers | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Boris Johnson will on Wednesday hit back at claims he deliberately misled parliament while serving as British prime minister.

    The former UK leader will give evidence to a parliamentary committee that is investigating Johnson’s claim that Covid-19 rules and guidelines were followed “at all times” during his time in 10 Downing Street.

    Johnson has already admitted in written evidence submitted Monday that he accepts the comments, made to parliament in December 2021, were misleading, but denies that he made them intentionally and claims that at the time he had been given assurances by trusted aides that no rules were broken.

    Subsequently, London’s Metropolitan Police have issued more than 100 fines to people who worked in Downing Street for breaches of pandemic regulations at times the country was under varying degrees of lockdown.

    Some of these breaches took place at gatherings where people were drinking alcohol, hence the nickname for the whole scandal, “Partygate.” Johnson, who resigned last July following a series of ethics scandals, was fined for attending one such gathering, where he was presented with a birthday cake.

    Central to Johnson’s denial is his rebuttal of the committee’s suggestion that it would have been “obvious” to the former prime minister that guidelines and rules were being ignored.

    The committee’s most recent report on the investigation says that the evidence “strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr. Johnson at the time he was at the gatherings.”

    Johnson hit back that if it had been obvious to him, then it would have been obvious to everyone else in the photos of said events that the committee has published as part of its evidence. He also noted that many of the pictures were taken by the official Downing Street photographer.

    “Four of the five photographs relied upon by the Committee are photographs from the official No. 10 photographer. A suggestion that we would have held events which were ‘obviously’ contrary to the Rules and Guidance, and allowed those events to be immortalised by the official photographer is implausible,” Johnson said in his written evidence.

    Johnson also claimed that the committee and its reports on the matter have been biased, saying it’s “important to record my disappointment at the highly partisan tone and content of the Fourth Report.”

    Johnson’s written evidence, 52 pages in total, is peppered with additional claims and evidence that he believes proves that he could not have known of any illegality in Downing Street when he made the misleading statement to parliament.

    The crucial question will be whether or not the committee believes it is plausible that Johnson – who was pictured at events where guidelines were clearly not being followed – sincerely believed that nothing wrong had happened.

    This is not an investigation into whether or not rules were broken: They were, Johnson has admitted so. It is not an investigation into whether Johnson made an incorrect statement to parliament: He has accepted he did and corrected the record.

    The key issue is whether or not he truly believed no rules or guidelines had been broken when he told parliament that was the case.

    It is an opaque question that will ultimately never have a conclusive answer, short of an open admission from Johnson. And to some extent, it doesn’t actually matter if Johnson can convince the committee members one way or the other. What will ultimately matter is how badly the committee chooses to punish Johnson, should it find him guilty.

    If he is found guilty, it is generally accepted that there are three possible sanctions.

    The first is that Johnson gives an apology to parliament. The second is that Johnson is suspended for fewer than 10 sitting days. The third is the Johnson is suspended for more than 10 sitting days.

    An apology would be embarrassing but have few consequences beyond his humiliation. The suspensions are where things get complicated. Both would require a vote in parliament, but the longer suspension could also mean a recall election, at which Johnson could very realistically lose his seat.

    A vote on Johnson’s fate could lead to a bitter argument within the governing Conservative party. Some (though a minority) on the Conservative benches still swear loyalty to Johnson. Others wish he would just go away.

    The committee of seven lawmakers is comprised of four Conservatives and three opposition members of parliament (MPs). The Conservative majority, if sufficiently persuaded by his evidence, could aim for a softer recommended sanction. Johnson might also hope his evidence packs enough of a punch that the opposition MPs lean toward a softer sanction to temper claims of a partisan witch hunt.

    The committee will not give its final report for at least a month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nonprofit head pleads guilty in Mississippi welfare fraud

    Nonprofit head pleads guilty in Mississippi welfare fraud

    [ad_1]

    The director of a Mississippi nonprofit organization has pleaded guilty in federal court to stealing government funds intended to help needy families in one of the poorest states in the U.S. Christi Webb appeared Thursday before U.S. District Judge Car…

    ByMICHAEL GOLDBERG Associated Press/Report for America

    JACKSON, Miss. — The director of a Mississippi nonprofit organization pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court to stealing government funds intended to help needy families in one of the poorest states in the U.S., court documents show.

    Christi Webb, director of the north Mississippi-based Family Resource Center, appeared before U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in Jackson. Court documents show Webb pleaded guilty to charges that could send her to prison for up to 10 years.

    The federal charges stem from a welfare scandal that has ensnared high-profile figures, including retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre, who lives in Mississippi.

    John Davis, who was Mississippi Department of Human Services executive director from 2016 to mid-2019, pleaded guilty last September to state and federal charges tied to misspending money through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. He has not yet been sentenced.

    The Mississippi Department of Human Services last year filed a civil lawsuit to try to recover the millions of dollars of misspent welfare money. Webb and the Family Resource Center of North Mississippi are among those being sued. Favre has not faced criminal charges but is one of more than three dozen defendants in the civil lawsuit.

    Nancy New and Zachary New, a mother and son who ran another nonprofit organization and an education company, pleaded guilty in April 2022 to state charges of misusing welfare money, including on lavish gifts such as first-class airfare for Davis. The News’ organization also funneled welfare money to be used on drug rehab for Brett DiBiase, a former pro wrestler and friend of Davis who has pleaded guilty to state and federal fraud charges.

    Welfare money helped fund pet projects of the wealthy, including $5 million for a volleyball arena that Favre supported at his alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi, the state auditor said. Favre’s daughter played volleyball at the school starting in 2017.

    A sentencing hearing for Webb has been set for June 16.

    ___

    Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/mikergoldberg.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Wells Fargo exec to plead guilty for role in bank scandal

    Ex-Wells Fargo exec to plead guilty for role in bank scandal

    [ad_1]

    A former Wells Fargo Bank executive accused of overseeing a ruse that created millions of bogus customer accounts has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges likely to send her prison for her role in the scandal

    LOS ANGELES — A former Wells Fargo Bank executive accused of overseeing a ruse that created millions of bogus customer accounts has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges likely to send her prison for her role in the scandal.

    The agreement filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles federal court calls for the former Wells Fargo executive, Carrie Tolstedt, to serve a 16-month prison sentence for obstructing regulators’ investigation into abusive sales practices that culminated in the bank paying billions of dollars in fines. Tolstedt, 63, also agreed to pay a $17 million fine in a separate civil settlement with the government that also bans her from working again in the banking industry.

    Prosecutors are requesting an April 7 court hearing to review the plea agreement.

    Tolstedt was the longtime head of the Wells Fargo’s division responsible for its sprawling network of retail branches, before leaving in 2016 just before evidence of the bank’s abusive sales tactics surfaced. After previously denying any wrongdoing, Tolstedt becomes the first Wells Fargo executive to be held criminally culpable for a scandal that resulted in the firing of 5,300 employees for falsifying bank records and other ethics violations.

    San Francisco-based Wells Fargo had previously admitted that its ambitious sales goals had fostered a culture that prodded its branch employees to open millions of unauthorized and fraudulent accounts from 2002 to 2016. The U.S. Justice Department alleged Tolstedt — now a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona — knew about the abuses dating back to 2004 and subsequently tried to cover up the misconduct in a memo prepared for regulators looking into the practices in 2015.

    “Obstructing an investigation compromises the mission of those seeking the truth, and we will hold accountable any individual who attempts to conceal wrongdoing.” said Acting United States Attorney Joseph T. McNally.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Head of union organization fired after EU donation probe

    Head of union organization fired after EU donation probe

    [ad_1]

    A major trade union organization has fired its general secretary after he admitted accepting donations from a suspect in a European cash-for-influence scandal

    BRUSSELS — An organization representing trade unions around the world has fired its general secretary after he admitted accepting donations from a suspect in a major European cash-for-influence scandal, saying that the affair has severely damaged its reputation.

    The International Trade Union Confederation, which claims to represent around 200 million workers worldwide, said in a statement issued after a weekend meeting that “Luca Visentini no longer had the confidence of the General Council as ITUC General Secretary.”

    Visentini was named to the post in November but was suspended the following month after he was taken into custody by Belgian prosecutors investigating whether a criminal organization had accepted bribes from representatives from Qatar and Morocco to influence decisions at the European Parliament.

    Visentini was not charged in the affair and denies involvement in any corruption, but was suspended by ITUC after he was taken into custody. He has admitted accepting a donation from a charity group set up by the man at the center of the scandal, Pier Antonio Panzeri, a former European Union lawmaker.

    ITUC’s public affairs office refused to reply to emails or accept phone calls from reporters in the weeks after Belgian prosecutors launched several raids in Brussels in December, seizing hundreds of thousands of euros in cash.

    “The events of the past few months have caused significant damage to the ITUC’s reputation,” Akiko Gono, the confederation’s president, said in the statement, posted on its website Saturday. ITUC says it has 332 affiliated organizations in 163 countries and territories.

    A special commission set up to investigate the allegations against Visentini “found no evidence of donations from either Qatar or Morocco influencing the ITUC’s policies or program,” the organization said. The statement said “an extraordinary ITUC World Congress” would be organized soon to name Visentini’s permanent successor.

    Panzeri, an Italian national, and three others were charged with corruption, money laundering and membership of a criminal organization over what is the EU parliament’s biggest corruption scandal. He recently reached an agreement with prosecutors, promising to name names and spell out how the bribes were paid in exchange for a lighter sentence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Accused Of Providing Inaccurate Financial Reports In Bankruptcy Battle With Sandy Hook Families

    Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Accused Of Providing Inaccurate Financial Reports In Bankruptcy Battle With Sandy Hook Families

    [ad_1]

    As we previously reported, last year, Jones filed for bankruptcy after being ordered to pay over $1.5 billion to the families of Sandy Hook shooting victims. The podcast host was sued after claiming the horrific event was fake.

    In their filing, the creditors explain Jones has failed to file his list of Schedules and Statements, which is a complete list of his assets and debts.

    The creditors claim the financial reports filed by Jones are “incomplete and contain inaccuracies.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Rock to finally have his say in new stand-up special

    Chris Rock to finally have his say in new stand-up special

    [ad_1]

    A year after Will Smith smacked him on the Academy Awards stage, Chris Rock is poised to finally have his say.

    The 58-year-old comedian on Saturday night will perform his first stand-up special since last year’s Oscars. He’s doing it in “Chris Rock: Selective Outrage,” streaming live on Netflix at 10 p.m. EST. Not only will Rock present about an hour of stand-up from the Hippodrome Theatre in Baltimore, but Netflix — in its first ever live show — will bookend the special with star-studded commentary.

    The pre-show, beginning at 9:30 p.m., will feature Paul McCartney, Jerry Seinfeld, Matthew McConaughey, Cedric the Entertainer, Ice-T and two hosts from last year’s Oscars: Wanda Sykes and Amy Schumer. Afterward Rock’s set, Dana Carvey and David Spade will host guests including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Arsenio Hall and JB Smoove.

    While Smith has apologized and repeatedly spoken about the incident since last March, Rock has avoided all the usual platforms where celebrities often go to air their feelings. He never sat down with Oprah Winfrey, and turned away the many media outlets that would have loved to land an exclusive in-depth interview.

    Instead, Rock has for much of the past year been touring new material in a long string of performances as part of his Ego Death tour. The shows, which had been announced before the 2022 Oscars, have featured performances with Dave Chappelle and Kevin Hart.

    On the road, Rock has often worked in jokes and reflections on the slap, though it’s never been more than an element of his shows. There’s no guarantee that he will talk it about Saturday night, but he’s widely expected to and has long suggested this would be his chosen forum.

    Rock first broke his public silence about the slap three nights after the Oscar ceremony, last year in Boston. “How was your weekend?” he asked the crowd. He added that he was “still kind of processing what happened.”

    Now, after plenty of processing, Rock will be taking the cultural spotlight just a week before the March 12 Oscars, where the slap is sure to revisited by this year’s host, Jimmy Kimmel. In the aftermath of last year’s events, Smith resigned his membership to the film academy. The academy board of governors banned Smith from the Oscars and all other academy events for a decade.

    At the annual luncheon for nominees held last month, motion picture academy president Janet Yang voiced regret about how the incident was handled, calling the academy’s response “inadequate.” Bill Kramer, the academy’s chief executive, has said the academy has since instituted a crisis communications team to prepare for and more rapidly respond to the unexpected.

    “Selective Outrage” is Rock’s second special for Netflix, following 2018’s “Tamborine.” They’re part of a two-special $40 million deal Rock signed with the streamer in 2016.

    While rivals have gotten into live streaming and sports, “Selective Outrage” marks Netflix’s first foray into live programming. Netflix, with 231 million global subscribers, also recently signed on to stream next year’s Screen Actors Guild Awards, signaling that “Selective Outrage” may be just the start of a new trend.

    ___

    Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Rock to finally have his say in new stand-up special

    Chris Rock to finally have his say in new stand-up special

    [ad_1]

    A year after Will Smith smacked him on the Academy Awards stage, Chris Rock is poised to finally have his say.

    The 58-year-old comedian on Saturday night will perform his first stand-up special since last year’s Oscars. He’s doing it in “Chris Rock: Selective Outrage,” streaming live on Netflix at 10 p.m. EST. Not only will Rock present about an hour of stand-up from the Hippodrome Theatre in Baltimore, but Netflix — in its first ever live show — will bookend the special with star-studded commentary.

    The pre-show, beginning at 9:30 p.m., will feature Paul McCartney, Jerry Seinfeld, Matthew McConaughey, Cedric the Entertainer, Ice-T and two hosts from last year’s Oscars: Wanda Sykes and Amy Schumer. Afterward Rock’s set, Dana Carvey and David Spade will host guests including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Arsenio Hall and JB Smoove.

    While Smith has apologized and repeatedly spoken about the incident since last March, Rock has avoided all the usual platforms where celebrities often go to air their feelings. He never sat down with Oprah Winfrey, and turned away the many media outlets that would have loved to land an exclusive in-depth interview.

    Instead, Rock has for much of the past year been touring new material in a long string of performances as part of his Ego Death tour. The shows, which had been announced before the 2022 Oscars, have featured performances with Dave Chappelle and Kevin Hart.

    On the road, Rock has often worked in jokes and reflections on the slap, though it’s never been more than an element of his shows. There’s no guarantee that he will talk it about Saturday night, but he’s widely expected to and has long suggested this would be his chosen forum.

    Rock first broke his public silence about the slap three nights after the Oscar ceremony, last year in Boston. “How was your weekend?” he asked the crowd. He added that he was “still kind of processing what happened.”

    Now, after plenty of processing, Rock will be taking the cultural spotlight just a week before the March 12 Oscars, where the slap is sure to revisited by this year’s host, Jimmy Kimmel. In the aftermath of last year’s events, Smith resigned his membership to the film academy. The academy board of governors banned Smith from the Oscars and all other academy events for a decade.

    At the annual luncheon for nominees held last month, motion picture academy president Janet Yang voiced regret about how the incident was handled, calling the academy’s response “inadequate.” Bill Kramer, the academy’s chief executive, has said the academy has since instituted a crisis communications team to prepare for and more rapidly respond to the unexpected.

    “Selective Outrage” is Rock’s second special for Netflix, following 2018’s “Tamborine.” They’re part of a two-special $40 million deal Rock signed with the streamer in 2016.

    While rivals have gotten into live streaming and sports, “Selective Outrage” marks Netflix’s first foray into live programming. Netflix, with 231 million global subscribers, also recently signed on to stream next year’s Screen Actors Guild Awards, signaling that “Selective Outrage” may be just the start of a new trend.

    ___

    Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP

    [ad_2]

    Source link