[ad_1]
Analyst Report: Exxon Mobil Corp.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The Constitutional Court of Colombia has stepped in to block a tax increase on online gambling, delivering a significant blow to President Gustavo Petro’s financial plans. The decision, reached by a 6-2 majority, provisionally suspends Legislative Decree 1390 of 2025, which envisioned a 19% value-added tax on online betting and gambling services.
The proposed levy was introduced during Colombia’s declared state of economic and social emergency. This mechanism empowers the executive branch to enact temporary measures when national stability is under threat. Petro’s administration had projected the decree would help raise roughly 11 trillion Colombian pesos ($3 billion), largely by taxing sectors viewed as undertaxed or rapidly expanding, such as online gambling.
Magistrate Carlos Camargo, the person behind the report that motivated the court’s decision, warned of serious flaws in the emergency decree and pushed for its immediate suspension. His 86-page opinion highlighted irregularities in the signing of the decree and a lack of detailed justification for the government’s decision to invoke emergency powers. The court agreed with these warnings and paused the decree until a final ruling on its constitutionality.
Legislative Decree 1390 of 2025 will NOT TAKE EFFECT until this Court issues a final decision regarding the constitutionality of the mentioned decree.
Constitutional Court of Colombia ruling
While the administration presented the tax as essential to address fiscal challenges, the court was adamant that constitutional safeguards still apply. Camargo noted that allowing the tax hike to proceed without a full constitutional review could undermine the nation’s foundational principles and lead to irreversible consequences.
The decision offers a short-term reprieve for Colombia’s gambling industry. Operators had warned that a sudden VAT hike would place an additional burden on consumers, pushing players toward unregulated offshore platforms and undermining recent efforts to channel bettors toward licensed offerings. While the court’s action buys time, the threat of a tax hike remains.
Colombia has increasingly turned to gambling as an additional revenue stream to cover its budgetary needs. Authorities are increasingly leaning on the sector to fund public priorities, particularly healthcare. Coljuegos, the national gambling regulator, has introduced new products such as blockchain Keno, which can generate hundreds of billions of pesos in contributions over the next five years.
Authorities have also intensified their enforcement against unlicensed operators. Coljuegos recently ordered internet service providers to block users from accessing the prediction market platform Polymarket, arguing that the company offered illegal political betting and cryptocurrency gambling. The regulator has remained adamant that gambling is welcome as a source of public funds, but only under strict regulatory control.
[ad_2]
Deyan Dimitrov
Source link
[ad_1]
Jan 28th, 2026, 2:38 pm

The Trump administration is severing ties with the management consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton over a data breach, as revealed by Scott Bessent, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, through a statement on January 26, 2026. Bessent additionally provided an estimate of the losses the firm would incur following their departure, highlighting that the Treasury Department currently has 31 separate contracts with them totaling $4.8 million in annual spending and $21 million in total obligations.
Trump is wasting no time covering up his trails. As mentioned previously, his administration is distancing itself from Booz Allen Hamilton, as per a statement by Scott Bessent. For those who don’t know the context of the incident, between 2018 and 2020, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton named Charles Edward Littlejohn had stolen and leaked the confidential tax returns and return information of thousands of taxpayers. As per the statistics determined by the IRS, the number of people affected by the data breach was believed to be approximately 406,000 taxpayers. Following the occurrence, Littlejohn had pleaded guilty to his crimes. Coming back to what we were initially discussing, besides letting people know about the Trump administration parting ways with Booz Allen Hamilton, Bessent’s declaration also contained the reason behind this drastic step, which is President Trump’s trust in his cabinet to “root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and canceling these contracts is an essential step to increasing Americans’ trust in government.” He additionally noted:
Booz Allen failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data, including the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the Internal Revenue Service.”
The news regarding the Trump administration’s estrangement from Booz Allen Hamilton has had a major impact on the firm, causing its stock price to fall by 10 points, which prompted them to share their perspective. On social media, including X (formerly Twitter), Booz Allen Hamilton’s official page highlighted that they “have consistently condemned in the strongest possible terms the actions of Charles Littlejohn, who was involved with the company years ago.” The post also emphasised the firm’s ethical standards, which include a “zero tolerance for violations of the law.” The statement also clarified that Littlejohn’s criminal actions took place on government systems, not the firm’s systems, as they do not store any taxpayer data on their systems and cannot monitor activity on government networks. It also mentioned that the firm played a key role in Littlejohn’s prosecution following investigations, thereby expressing eagerness to discuss the issue with the Treasury.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
[ad_2]
Sanchari Ghosh
Source link
[ad_1]
BOSTON — Democratic Gov. Maura Healey is seeking to blunt the impact to state coffers from changes to the federal tax code under President Donald Trump’s new tax cuts and policy law, but business groups say the move would hurt Massachusetts’ competitiveness.
Healey has filed legislation that would delay implementation of what she described as the five “most costliest” changes in federal tax code created by Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act until next year.
kAmp?@E96C AC@G:D:@? @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ H9:49 C6BF:C6D =68:D=2E:G6 2AAC@G2=[ H@F=5 2==@H E96 DE2E6 😕 E96 7FEFC6 E@ “2FE@>2E:42==J” 56=2J 3J FA E@ @?6 J62C :>A=6>6?E2E:@? @7 2?J 7656C2= E2I A@=:4J 492?86D E92E 6I4665 2 Sa_ >:==:@? :>A24E @? DE2E6 C6G6?F6 4@==64E:@?D]k^Am
kAmx? 2 =6EE6C E@ =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD[ w62=6J D2:5 E96 AC@A@D2= 😀 2 “E9@F89E7F=[ A92D65:? 2AAC@249” E@ :>A=6>6?E:?8 7656C2= E2I C67@C>D 2E E96 DE2E6 =6G6= “E92E H:== 6?DFC6 @FC 4FCC6?E 7:D42= C62C a_ae 3F586E – 2?5 E96 4C:E:42= D6CG:46D :E AC@G:56D – C6>2:?D :?E24E” H9:=6 2=D@ AC@G:5:?8 E2I C6=:67]k^Am
kAm“%9:D 2AAC@249 H:== 2==@H |2DD249FD6EED E@ DAC625 E96 E2I C6G6?F6 :>A24E @7 E96 ~qqqp AC@G:D:@?D @G6C >F=E:A=6 7:D42= J62CD H9:=6 36?67:4:2C:6D H:== :>>65:2E6=J D66 E96 E2I 36?67:E @7 ~qqqp 2E E96 7656C2= =6G6= 2?5 C62=:K6 E96 7F== 36?67:ED 2E E96 DE2E6 =6G6= 😕 @?6 E@ EH@ J62CD[” w62=6J HC@E6]k^Am
kAmp>@?8 E96 E2I C6=:67 AC@G:D:@?D w62=6J H2?ED E@ 56=2J 😀 @?6 E92E H@F=5 6?23=6 3FD:?6DD6D E@ 7F==J 565F4E 5@>6DE:4 C6D62C49 2?5 6IA6C:>6?E2= 4@DED H:E9:? E96 J62C E92E E9@D6 6IA6?D6D 2C6 :?4FCC65]k^Am
kAmw62=6J D2:5 F?56C 96C A=2?[ 3FD:?6DD6D H:== DE:== 36 23=6 E@ “FE:=:K6” E96 492?86 @? E96:C A2J>6?ED 7@C E2I J62C a_ae 3FE E96 DE2E6 H:== 2G@:5 =@D:?8 Sagg >:==:@? 😕 E96 ?6IE 7:D42= J62C]k^Am
kAmw62=6J[ H9@ 😀 6IA64E65 E@ 7:=6 96C AC6=:>:?2CJ 3F586E ?6IE H66<[ D2:5 D96 C64@8?:K6D >2?J 3FD:?6DD6D “DE2?5 E@ 36?67:E 7C@> E96 ?6H E2I CF=6D[ 2?5 |2DD249FD6EED[ 😕 86?6C2=[ H:== 36 😕 2 36EE6C 4@>A6E:E:G6 A@D:E:@? 4@>A2C65 E@ @FC 4@>A6E:E@C DE2E6D :7 E96D6 AC@G:D:@?D 2C6 2==@H65 E@ E2<6 67764E]”k^Am
kAmqFE D96 D2:5 96C A=2? “32=2?46D E92E 8@2= 282:?DE E96 C62=:EJ E92E @FC 23:=:EJ E@ 56=:G6C E96 AC@8C2>D 2?5 D6CG:46D A2:5 7@C E9C@F89 E96 3F586E E92E @FC 4@>>F?:E:6D[ D49@@=D[ H@C<6CD 2?5 >@DE GF=?6C23=6 C6D:56?ED C6=J @? H@F=5 36 2E C:D< :7 E96 C6G6?F6 :>A24ED 2C6 ?@E >:E:82E65]”k^Am
kAm%CF>A D:8?65 9:D ~?6 q:8 q62FE:7F= q:==[ E96 46?E6CA:646 @7 9:D 64@?@>:4 286?52[ :?E@ =2H 😕 yF=J 27E6C :E A2DD65 3@E9 E96 #6AF3=:42?4@?EC@==65 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 $6?2E6 😕 2 =2C86=J A2CE:D2? G@E6]k^Am
kAm|6>36CD @7 E96 DE2E6’D 2==s6>@4C2E 4@?8C6DD:@?2= 56=682E:@?[ :?4=F5:?8 &]$] #6AD] $6E9 |@F=E@? 2?5 {@C: %C292?[ G@E65 😕 F?:D@? 282:?DE E96 Sb]d EC:==:@? DA6?5:?8 3:==]k^Am
kAmqFE w62=6J D2:5 E96 E:>:?8 @7 E96 E2I 4FED 8@:?8 :?E@ 67764E E9:D J62C F?56C E96 3:== 8:G6D q624@? w:==’D 3F586E HC:E6CD =:EE=6 E:>6 E@ A=2? 7@C E96 6DE:>2E65 Scca >:==:@? 7:D42= :>A24E @7 E96 7656C2= E2I A@=:4J 492?86D @? E96 DE2E6’D @A6C2E:?8 C6G6?F6D]k^Am
kAm“p?5 H6 2C6 ?@E 2=@?6[” D96 HC@E6] “$E2E6D 2C@F?5 E96 4@F?ECJ 2C6 724:?8 2?5 92G6 >256 D:>:=2C 49@:46D 23@FE :7 2?5 H96? E@ :>A=6>6?E ~qqqp E2I 492?86D]”k^Am
[ad_2]
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link
[ad_1]
SALEM — The City Council voted unanimously Thursday night to borrow up to $447 million to pay for the construction of a new high school.
The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is expected to reimburse the city around 44% of the total project cost, but that percentage won’t be finalized until after the MSBA’s meeting in February. The MSBA requires communities to commit to paying up to the full amount of a new school project in order to move forward.
kAmsFC:?8 2 y2?] a` AC6D6?E2E:@? 7C@> E96 $2=6> w:89 $49@@= qF:=5:?8 r@>>:EE66 E@ E96 4@F?4:=[ 4@>>:EE66 >6>36CD D2:5 E96 4:EJ 😀 AC@;64E65 E@ C646:G6 2AAC@I:>2E6=J S`hg >:==:@? 7C@> |$qp[ C6AC6D6?E:?8 ccT @7 E96 E@E2= AC@;64E 4@DE] %92E ?F>36C 😀 D=:89E=J 5@H? 7C@> E96 :?:E:2= 6DE:>2E6D @7 cdT E@ e_T]k^Am
kAm%96 3@?5 @C56C 2FE9@C:K2E:@? @7 Sccf[bgd[d`g C6AC6D6?ED E96 7F== AC@;64E 4@DE 2D DF3>:EE65 E@ E96 |$qp[ :?4=F5:?8 D@7E 4@DED[ 4@?DECF4E:@? 4@DED 2?5 4@?E:?86?4:6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 4:EJ]k^Am
kAm%96 AC@;64E H@F=5 4C62E6 2? 6?E:C6=J ?6H[ 7@FCDE@CJ[ bed[___DBF2C67@@E 3F:=5:?8 36EH66? E96 4FCC6?E 9:89 D49@@=’D 7@@EAC:?E 2?5 w:89=2?5 pG6?F6 H:E9 2? 6DE:>2E65 4@?DECF4E:@? A6C:@5 @7 b_ >@?E9D]k^Am
kAm%96 4:EJ :?E6?5D E@ C2:D6 AC@A6CEJ E2I6D E@ A2J 7@C >F49 @7 :ED D92C6 @7 E96 AC@;64E 3J E6>A@C2C:=J 6I4665:?8 E96 =:>:ED @7 !C@A@D:E:@? a½ G:2 2 563E 6I4=FD:@? @G6CC:56 E92E H@F=5 4@>6 367@C6 G@E6CD 5FC:?8 2 DA64:2= 6=64E:@? @? |2J d[ a_ae] %96 4:EJ H@?’E @F?E E@ 36 C2:D65 =@42==J F?E:= E96 |$qp 92D 2? 6I24E C6:>3FCD6>6?E 7:8FC6]k^Am
kAmp7E6C E96 7:?2?4:2= 724E@CD 2C6 AC@G:565[ E96 4:EJ A=2?D E@ 92G6 2 42=4F=2E@C @? E96 qF:=5:?8 r@>>:EE66’D H63D:E6 H96C6 AC@A6CEJ @H?6CD 42? 56E6C>:?6 H92E :?4C62D65 4@DED E96J’== D66]k^Am
kAmsFC:?8 E96 y2?] a` >66E:?8[ E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= F?2?:>@FD=J 2AAC@G65 2? 2AAC@AC:2E:@? @7 Sah[dc_ 7C@> 7C66 42D9 7@C 255:E:@?2= D2=2C:6D ?66565 E@ A2J A@== H@C<6CD 2?5 DE277 @G6CE:>6 2DD@4:2E65 H:E9 E96 |2J DA64:2= 6=64E:@?]k^Am
kAmpD @AA@D65 E@ 2 C68F=2C E2I @G6CC:56[ H9:49 😀 2 A6C>2?6?E :?4C62D6 @7 E96 E2I =6GJ[ 2 563E 6I4=FD:@? 😀 2 E6>A@C2CJ :?4C62D6 7@C 2 DA64:7:4 AC@;64E[ H:E9 E96 =6GJ =:>:E C6EFC?:?8 @?46 E92E 563E 😀 A2:5 @77] %96 4:EJ’D 7:?2?46 5:C64E@C 2?5 3@?5 4@F?D6= 2C6 H@C<:?8 E9C@F89 9@H =@?8 E96 AC@;64E H:== E2<6 E@ 36 7F==J A2:5 @77 E9C@F89 E96 3@?5[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 4:EJ]k^Am
kAmx7 G@E6CD H6C6 E@ C6;64E E96 563E 6I4=FD:@? @G6CC:56[ $2=6> 😀 DE:== C6BF:C65 E@ 5@ 2 32D:4 C6?@G2E:@? @7 E96 6I:DE:?8 3F:=5:?8 E@ 3C:?8 :E FA E@ 4@56] %92E D>2==6C D42=6 AC@;64E 😀 DE:== 6DE:>2E65 2E Sbdb]e >:==:@?[ 3FE H:E9 E96 4@DE 6?E:C6=J A=2465 @? E96 4:EJ]k^Am
kAm%96 3F:=5:?8 4@>>:EE66 D2JD E92E C6?@G2E:@? H@F=5 2=D@ =:<6=J 92G6 E@ 36 DAC625 @FE @G6C >@C6 E92? b_ J62CD[ H:E9 2? 2DDF>65 dT 😕 4@DE 6D42=2E:@? 6249 J62C[ >2<:?8 E96 ECF6 4@DE >F49 8C62E6C E92? ?6H 4@?DECF4E:@? ?@H]k^Am
kAm(9:=6 2== AF3=:4 E6DE:>@?J 5FC:?8 %9FCD52J’D >66E:?8 C6=2E:?8 E@ E96 3@?5 @C56C 6IAC6DD65 DFAA@CE 7@C E96 ?6H 9:89 D49@@=[ C6D:56?E $E6G6? z2A2?E:D C2:D65 4@?46C?D @G6C 7:?2?4:2= BF6DE:@?D E92E DE:== =:?86C 7@C C6D:56?ED]k^Am
Michael McHugh can be contacted at mmchugh@northofboston.com or at 781-799-5202
[ad_2]
By Michael McHugh Staff Writer
Source link
[ad_1]
When you lose your job and receive severance, it may be paid as a lump sum payment. It is generally a certain number of weeks of salary that increases based on factors like length of service, age, and seniority. Other factors can play a role, though.
When you receive a lump sum payment, the withholding tax is generally only 30%. The problem is that regardless of the withholding tax on a lump sum severance payment or any other source of income, when you file your tax return, the appropriate tax rate is determined.
If you receive a large severance, or have a high income to begin with, the tax owing on the payment could be an additional 20% or more.
Related reading: How to avoid tax on severance pay
When you lose your job, you may continue to be paid your regular salary for a certain period of time. This is called salary continuance.
The payroll withholding tax is the same as if you continued to be paid a salary. The result is that your tax withholding should be more or less in line with what your tax owing will be on your tax return, barring other income sources, tax deductions, or tax credits.
Corporations can help defer and save tax, Geoffrey, but it depends on the circumstances. The best tax use case for a corporation is to earn active business income. If you run a business and earn profit through a corporation that you leave in the corporation and do not withdraw, it can be subject to a low rate of tax.
Depending on the province or territory, it can be as low as 9 to 12%. There is more tax payable when you withdraw the money and use it personally, but a corporation is definitely a great tax deferral tool.
Deadlines, tax tips and more
The problem with the severance is that it is employment income. If you have it paid into a corporation or you transfer the payment into a corporation, that does not magically turn T4 employment income into corporate active business income. As a result, a corporation will not help you save tax on a severance.
The tax rate on investment income earned in a corporation is similar to the top tax rate in most provinces and territories. As a result, earning investment income in a corporation tends to result in comparable or even more tax than earning it personally, Geoffrey.
So, why do people use investment holding companies? The reason is the aforementioned small business tax rate of 9 to 12%. If you earn business income and can leave it in a corporation to invest, you may be able to invest roughly 90 cents on the dollar of your corporate profit.
Business owners often do so using a separate investment holding company, where they can transfer money out of their active business. However, putting personal savings into a corporation to invest will not generally save you tax.
If you want to save tax on a severance, there are two easy ways, Geoffrey.
The first is to contribute to your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP). You may even have the opportunity to have your employer transfer some or all of your severance directly into your RRSP with no withholding tax. But remember, this is like getting your tax refund up front. You will not also get a tax refund when you file your tax return.
The second opportunity is to defer the severance to a future year. Especially if it is later in the calendar year, your employer may be open to deferring the payment to January to push the incremental tax back one year. Some employers will pay a severance over multiple years, but this is less common.
[ad_2]
Jason Heath, CFP
Source link
[ad_1]
The battle over a new tax on California’s billionaires is set to heat up in the coming months as citizens spar over whether the state should squeeze its ultra-rich to better serve its ordinary residents.
The proposed billionaire tax that triggered the tempest is still far from being approved by voters or even making the ballot, but the idea has already sparked backlash from vocal tech moguls — some of whom have already shifted their bases outside the state.
Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union behind the act, said the measure would raise much-needed money for healthcare, education and food assistance programs.
Other unions have piled on billionaires, targeting the rich in Los Angeles.
A group of Los Angeles labor unions said Wednesday that it is proposing a ballot measure to raise taxes on companies whose chief executive officers earn 50 times more than their median-paid employees.
Here is how this fight could continue to play out in the Golden State:
The California billionaire tax would apply to about 200 California billionaires who reside in the state as of Jan. 1. Roughly 90% of funds would go to healthcare and the rest to public K-14 education and state food assistance.
The tax, due in 2027, would exclude real estate, pensions and retirement accounts, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan government agency. Billionaires could spread out the tax payment over five years, but would have to pay more.
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin
Google is still headquartered in California, but December filings to the California Secretary of State show other companies tied to Page and Brin recently converted out of the state.
One filing, for example, shows that one of the companies they managed, now named T-Rex Holdings, moved from Palo Alto to Reno last month.
Business Insider and the New York Times earlier reported on these filings. Google didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel
Thiel Capital, based in Los Angeles, announced in December it opened an office in Miami. The firm didn’t respond to a request for comment. Thiel recently contributed $3 million to the political action committee of the California Business Roundtable, which is opposing the ballot measure, records provided to the Secretary of State’s Office show.
Oracle co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Larry Ellison
Years before the wealth tax proposal, Ellison began pulling back from California, but he’s continued to distance himself farther from the state since the proposal emerged.
Last year, Ellison sold his San Francisco mansion for $45 million. The home on 2850 Broadway was sold off-market in mid-December, according to Redfin.
Oracle declined to comment.
DoorDash co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Andy Fang
Fang, who was born and raised in California, said on X that he loves the state but is thinking about moving.
“Stupid wealth tax proposals like this make it irresponsible for me not to plan leaving the state,” he said.
DoorDash didn’t respond to a request for comment.
To qualify for the ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the healthcare union, must gather nearly 875,000 registered voter signatures and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.
If it makes it on the November ballot, the proposal would be the focus of intense scrutiny and debate as both sides have already lined up big war chests to bombard voters with their positions. A majority of voters would need to approve the ballot measure.
Lawyers for billionaires have also signaled the battle won’t be over even if the ballot measure passes.
“Our clients are prepared to mount a vigorous constitutional challenge if this measure advances,” wrote Alex Spiro, an attorney who has represented billionaires such as Elon Musk in a December letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
It’s unclear if the ballot measure has a good chance of passing in November. Newsom opposes the tax, and his support has proved important for ballot measures.
In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed. The following year, he opposed legislation to tax assets exceeding $50 million. The bill was shelved before the Legislature could vote on it. A bill that would impose an annual tax on California residents whose net worth surpassed $30 million also failed in 2020.
However, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) have backed the wealth tax proposal, and Californians have passed temporary tax measures before. In 2012, they approved Proposition 30 to increase sales tax and personal income tax for residents with an annual income of more than $250,000.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said in a December letter that the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax, but it could also lose other tax revenue.
“The exact amount the state would collect is very hard to predict for many reasons. For example, it is hard to know what actions billionaires would take to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Also, much of the wealth is based on stock prices, which are always changing,” the letter said.
California economist Kevin Klowden said the tax could create future budget problems for the state. “The catch is that this is a one-off fix for what is a systemic problem,” he said.
Supporters of the proposal said the measure would raise about $100 billion and pushed back against the idea that billionaires would flee.
“We see a lot of cheap talk from billionaires,” said UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the proposal. “Some people do actually leave and change their behavior, but the vast bulk of wealthy people don’t, because it doesn’t make sense.”
Still, the pushback has been escalating.
Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya estimates that the lost revenues from the billionaires who have already left the state would lead to more losses in tax revenues than gained by the new tax.
“By starting this ill-conceived attempt at an asset tax, the California budget deficit will explode,” he posted on X. “And we still don’t know if the tax will even make the ballot.”
The union backing the initiative says “the billionaire exodus narrative” is “wildly overstated.”
“Right now, it appears the overwhelming majority of billionaires have chosen to stay in California past the Jan. 1 deadline,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. “Only a very small percentage left before the deadline, despite weeks of Chicken Little talking points claiming a modest tax would trigger a mass departure.”
Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Queenie Wong
Source link