Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered the creation of the Justice Department’s Cyber-Digital Task Force, which will canvass the many ways that the Department is combatting the global cyber threat, and will also identify how federal law enforcement can more effectively accomplish its mission in this vital and evolving area.

“The Internet has given us amazing new tools that help us work, communicate, and participate in our economy, but these tools can also be exploited by criminals, terrorists, and enemy governments,” Attorney General Sessions said. “At the Department of Justice, we take these threats seriously. That is why today I am ordering the creation of a Cyber-Digital Task Force to advise me on the most effective ways that this Department can confront these threats and keep the American people safe.”

The Task Force will be chaired by a senior Department official appointed by the Deputy Attorney General and will consist of representatives from the Department’s Criminal Division, the National Security Division, the United States Attorney’s Office community, the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the ATF, FBI, DEA, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The Deputy Attorney General may invite representatives from other Department of Justice components and from other federal agencies to participate in the Task Force. He may also establish subcommittees to focus the Task Force’s efforts.

The Task Force will be responsible for issuing a report to the Attorney General by the end of June.

The Attorney General has asked the Task Force to prioritize its study of efforts to interfere with our elections; efforts to interfere with our critical infrastructure; the use of the Internet to spread violent ideologies and to recruit followers; the mass theft of corporate, governmental, and private information; the use of technology to avoid or frustrate law enforcement; and the mass exploitation of computers and other digital devices to attack American citizens and businesses. The scope of the Task Force’s report is not limited to these categories.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against German company Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG) and its Australian subsidiary, Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd (VGA) (together, Volkswagen), alleging they engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public in relation to diesel vehicle emission claims.

The ACCC alleges that between 2011 and 2015:
VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by installing and not disclosing the existence and operation of ‘defeat’ software, which controlled the operation of the vehicles’ exhaust gas recirculation system. The software caused the vehicles to produce lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when subject to test conditions in a laboratory, but switched to a different mode under normal on-road driving conditions resulting in significantly higher NOx emissions being produced by the vehicles.

Both VGA and VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by representing that the vehicles complied with Australian and European standards and all Australian regulatory requirements when, because of the defeat software, that was not the case.

Using information provided by VWAG, VGA marketed the vehicles in Australia as being environmentally friendly, clean burning, low emission and compliant with stringent European standards when this was not the case under normal driving conditions.

“The ACCC alleges that Volkswagen engaged in multiple breaches of the Australian Consumer Law by concealing software in their vehicles to cheat emissions testing and misleading consumers about the vehicle’s compliance with standards and emission levels during on-road conditions,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“Consumers rightly expect that their vehicle’s emissions would operate as advertised during their day-to-day use and we allege that this was not the case with more than 57 000 vehicles sold in Australia by Volkswagen over a five-year period.”

“These allegations involve extraordinary conduct of a serious and deliberate nature by a global corporation and its Australian subsidiary misleading consumers and the Australian public. We expect higher standards of behaviour from all companies that supply to Australian consumers,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, corrective advertising, findings of fact and costs.

The Volkswagen branded vehicles covered by these proceedings are:
Amarok 2.0 litre – 2011 to 2012
Caddy 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2010 to 2015
Eos 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2014
Golf 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2013
Jetta 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2015
Passat 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2015
Passat CC 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2012
Polo 1.6 litre – 2009 to 2014
Tiguan 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2015
CC 2.0 litre – 2011 to 2015
The Australian Design Rules implement international standards that regulate the emission of NOx from motor vehicles. NOx can cause respiratory illnesses and is particularly harmful to vulnerable consumers such as the young, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

Background
In February 2016, VGA announced the implementation of a recall (initiated in October 2015) with rectification for affected Amarok vehicles. VGA is seeking approval from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for rectification of other affected vehicles across all brands.

Private class actions seeking redress for consumers affected by this conduct are currently before the Federal Court in relation to Volkswagen, Audi and SKODA branded vehicles.

VWAG is the world’s second-largest car manufacturer by sales volume in the world.

Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd. (Avon China), a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York-based cosmetics company, Avon Products Inc. (Avon), pleaded guilty today to conspiring to violate the accounting provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to conceal more than $8 million in gifts, cash and non-business meals, travel and entertainment it gave to Chinese government officials in order to obtain and retain business benefits for Avon China. Avon China and Avon admitted the improper accounting and payments and Avon entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve the investigation. In a proceeding today before United States District Judge George B. Daniels, the criminal Informations were filed against Avon and Avon China, and Avon China entered its guilty plea and was sentenced.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

“Companies that cook their books to hide improper payments will face criminal penalties, as Avon China’s guilty plea demonstrates,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “Public companies that discover bribes paid to foreign officials, fail to stop them, and cover them up do so at their own peril.”

“For years in China it was ‘Avon calling,’ as Avon bestowed millions of dollars in gifts and other things on Chinese government officials in return for business benefits,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “Avon China was in the door-to-door influence-peddling business, and for years its corporate parent, rather than putting an end to the practice, conspired to cover it up. Avon has now agreed to adopt rigorous internal controls and to the appointment of a monitor to ensure that reforms are instituted and maintained.”

“When corporations knowingly engage in bribery in order to obtain and retain contracts, it disrupts the level playing field to which all businesses are entitled,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge McCabe. “Companies who attempt to advance their businesses through foreign bribery should be on notice. The FBI, with our law enforcement partners, is continuing to push this unacceptable practice out of the business playbook by investigating companies who ignore the law.”

Avon China pleaded guilty to a criminal information filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the company with conspiring to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA. Avon, the parent company, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement today and admitted its criminal conduct, including its role in the conspiracy and its failure to implement internal controls. Pursuant to the deferred prosecution agreement, the department filed a criminal information charging Avon with conspiring to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA and violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In total, the Avon entities will pay $67,648,000 in criminal penalties. Avon also agreed to implement rigorous internal controls, cooperate fully with the department and retain a compliance monitor for at least 18 months.

Avon settled a related FCPA matter with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today, and will pay an additional $67,365,013 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, bringing the total amount of U.S. criminal and regulatory penalties paid by Avon and Avon China to $135,013,013.

According to the companies’ admissions, from at least 2004 through 2008, Avon and Avon China conspired to falsify Avon’s books and records by falsely describing the nature and purpose of certain Avon China transactions. Specifically, the companies sought to disguise over $8 million in gifts, cash and non-business travel, meals and entertainment that Avon China executives and employees gave to government officials in China in order to obtain and retain business benefits for Avon China. Avon China attempted to disguise the payments and benefits through various means, including falsely describing the nature or purpose of, or participants associated with such expenses, and falsely recording payments to a third party intermediary as payments for legitimate consulting services.

The companies also admitted that in late 2005 Avon learned that Avon China was routinely providing things of value to Chinese government officials and failing to properly document them. Instead of ensuring the practice was halted, fixing the false books and records, disciplining the culpable individuals, and implementing appropriate controls to address this problem, the companies took steps to conceal the conduct, despite knowing that Avon China’s books and records, and ultimately Avon’s books and records, would continue to be inaccurate.

Court filings acknowledge Avon’s cooperation with the department, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, translating and organizing voluminous evidence.

The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Laura Perkins of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Paul of the Southern District of New York. The Justice Department expresses its appreciation for the significant assistance provided by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in this investigation.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Associate Attorney General Tony West announced today that the Department of Justice has reached a $16.65 billion settlement with Bank of America Corporation – the largest civil settlement with a single entity in American history ­— to resolve federal and state claims against Bank of America and its former and current subsidiaries, including Countrywide Financial Corporation and Merrill Lynch. As part of this global resolution, the bank has agreed to pay a $5 billion penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) – the largest FIRREA penalty ever – and provide billions of dollars of relief to struggling homeowners, including funds that will help defray tax liability as a result of mortgage modification, forbearance or forgiveness. The settlement does not release individuals from civil charges, nor does it absolve Bank of America, its current or former subsidiaries and affiliates or any individuals from potential criminal prosecution.

“This historic resolution – the largest such settlement on record – goes far beyond ‘the cost of doing business,’” said Attorney General Holder. “Under the terms of this settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $7 billion in relief to struggling homeowners, borrowers and communities affected by the bank’s conduct. This is appropriate given the size and scope of the wrongdoing at issue.”

This settlement is part of the ongoing efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group, which has recovered $36.65 billion to date for American consumers and investors.

“At nearly $17 billion, today’s resolution with Bank of America is the largest the department has ever reached with a single entity in American history,” said Associate Attorney General West. “But the significance of this settlement lies not just in its size; this agreement is notable because it achieves real accountability for the American people and helps to rectify the harm caused by Bank of America’s conduct through a $7 billion consumer relief package that could benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans still struggling to pull themselves out from under the weight of the financial crisis.”

The Justice Department and the bank settled several of the department’s ongoing civil investigations related to the packaging, marketing, sale, arrangement, structuring and issuance of RMBS, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and the bank’s practices concerning the underwriting and origination of mortgage loans. The settlement includes a statement of facts, in which the bank has acknowledged that it sold billions of dollars of RMBS without disclosing to investors key facts about the quality of the securitized loans. When the RMBS collapsed, investors, including federally insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses. The bank has also conceded that it originated risky mortgage loans and made misrepresentations about the quality of those loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Of the record-breaking $16.65 billion resolution, almost $10 billion will be paid to settle federal and state civil claims by various entities related to RMBS, CDOs and other types of fraud. Bank of America will pay a $5 billion civil penalty to settle the Justice Department claims under FIRREA. Approximately $1.8 billion will be paid to settle federal fraud claims related to the bank’s origination and sale of mortgages, $1.03 billion will be paid to settle federal and state securities claims by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), $135.84 million will be paid to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, $300 million will be paid to settle claims by the state of California, $45 million to settle claims by the state of Delaware, $200 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois, $23 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, $75 million to settle claims by the state of Maryland, and $300 million to settle claims by the state of New York.

Bank of America will provide the remaining $7 billion in the form of relief to aid hundreds of thousands of consumers harmed by the financial crisis precipitated by the unlawful conduct of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. That relief will take various forms, including principal reduction loan modifications that result in numerous homeowners no longer being underwater on their mortgages and finally having substantial equity in their homes. It will also include new loans to credit worthy borrowers struggling to get a loan, donations to assist communities in recovering from the financial crisis, and financing for affordable rental housing. Finally, Bank of America has agreed to place over $490 million in a tax relief fund to be used to help defray some of the tax liability that will be incurred by consumers receiving certain types of relief if Congress fails to extend the tax relief coverage of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.

An independent monitor will be appointed to determine whether Bank of America is satisfying its obligations. If Bank of America fails to live up to its agreement by Aug. 31, 2018, it must pay liquidated damages in the amount of the shortfall to organizations that will use the funds for state-based Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations and NeighborWorks America, a non-profit organization and leader in providing affordable housing and facilitating community development. The organizations will use the funds for foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment, legal assistance, housing counselling and neighborhood stabilization.

As part of the RMBS Working Group, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey conducted a FIRREA investigation into misrepresentations made by Merrill Lynch to investors in 72 RMBS throughout 2006 and 2007. As the statement of facts describes, Merrill Lynch regularly told investors the loans it was securitizing were made to borrowers who were likely and able to repay their debts. Merrill Lynch made these representations even though it knew, based on the due diligence it had performed on samples of the loans, that a significant number of those loans had material underwriting and compliance defects – including as many as 55 percent in a single pool. In addition, Merrill Lynch rarely reviewed the unsampled loans to ensure that the defects observed in the samples were not present throughout the remainder of the pools. Merrill Lynch also disregarded its own due diligence and securitized loans that the due diligence vendors had identified as defective. This practice led one Merrill Lynch consultant to “wonder why we have due diligence performed” if Merrill Lynch was going to securitize the loans “regardless of issues.”

“In the run-up to the financial crisis, Merrill Lynch bought more and more mortgage loans, packaged them together, and sold them off in securities – even when the bank knew a substantial number of those loans were defective,” said U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the District of New Jersey. “The failure to disclose known risks undermines investor confidence in our financial institutions. Today’s record-breaking settlement, which includes the resolution of our office’s imminent multibillion-dollar suit for FIRREA penalties, reflects the seriousness of the lapses that caused staggering losses and wider economic damage.”

This settlement also resolves the complaint filed against Bank of America in August 2013 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina concerning an $850 million securitization. Bank of America acknowledges that it marketed this securitization as being backed by bank-originated “prime” mortgages that were underwritten in accordance with its underwriting guidelines. Yet, Bank of America knew that a significant number of loans in the security were “wholesale” mortgages originated through mortgage brokers and that based on its internal reporting, such loans were experiencing a marked increase in underwriting defects and a noticeable decrease in performance. Notwithstanding these red flags, the bank sold these RMBS to federally backed financial institutions without conducting any third party due diligence on the securitized loans and without disclosing key facts to investors in the offering documents filed with the SEC. A related case concerning the same securitization was filed by the SEC against Bank of America and is also being resolved as part of this settlement.

“Today’s settlement attests to the fact that fraud pervaded every level of the RMBS industry, including purportedly prime securities, which formed the basis of our filed complaint,” said U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins for the Western District of North Carolina. “Even reputable institutions like Bank of America caved to the pernicious forces of greed and cut corners, putting profits ahead of their customers. As we deal with the aftermath of the financial meltdown and rebuild our economy, we will hold accountable firms that contributed to the economic crisis. Today’s settlement makes clear that my office will not sit idly while fraud occurs in our backyard.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California has been investigating the origination and securitization practices of Countrywide as part of the RMBS Working Group effort. The statement of facts describes how Countrywide typically represented to investors that it originated loans based on underwriting standards that were designed to ensure that borrowers could repay their loans, although Countrywide had information that certain borrowers had a high probability of defaulting on their loans. Countrywide also concealed from RMBS investors its use of “shadow guidelines” that permitted loans to riskier borrowers than Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines would otherwise permit. Countrywide’s origination arm was motivated by the “saleability” of loans and Countrywide was willing to originate “exception loans” (i.e., loans that fell outside of its underwriting guidelines) so long as the loans, and the attendant risk, could be sold. This led Countrywide to expand its loan offerings to include, for example, “Extreme Alt-A” loans, which one Countrywide executive described as a “hazardous product,” although Countrywide failed to tell RMBS investors that these loans were being originated outside of Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines. Countrywide knew that these exception loans were performing far worse than loans originated without exceptions, although it never disclosed this fact to investors.

“The Central District of California has taken the lead in the department’s investigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie Yonekura for the Central District of California. “Countrywide’s improper securitization practices resulted in billions of dollars of losses to federally-insured financial institutions. We are pleased that this investigation has resulted in a multibillion-dollar recovery to compensate the United States for the losses caused by Countrywide’s misconduct.”

In addition to the matters relating to the securitization of toxic mortgages, today’s settlement also resolves claims arising out of misrepresentations made to government entities concerning the origination of residential mortgages.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, along with the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, conducted investigations into the origination of defective residential mortgage loans by Countrywide’s Consumer Markets Division and Bank of America’s Retail Lending Division as well as the fraudulent sale of such loans to the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”). The investigation into these practices, as well as three private whistleblower lawsuits filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act, are resolved in connection with this settlement. As part of the settlement, Countrywide and Bank of America have agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve their liability under the False Claims Act. The FIRREA penalty to be paid by Bank of America as part of the settlement also resolves the government’s claims against Bank of America and Countrywide under FIRREA for loans fraudulently sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, Countrywide and Bank of America made admissions concerning their conduct, including that they were aware that many of the residential mortgage loans they had made to borrowers were defective, that many of the representations and warranties they made to the GSEs about the quality of the loans were inaccurate, and that they did not self-report to the GSEs mortgage loans they had internally identified as defective.

“For years, Countrywide and Bank of America unloaded toxic mortgage loans on the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with false representations that the loans were quality investments,” said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York. “This office has already obtained a jury verdict of fraud and a judgment for over a billion dollars against Countrywide and Bank of America for engaging in similar conduct. Now, this settlement, which requires the bank to pay another billion dollars for false statements to the GSEs, continues to send a clear message to Wall Street that mortgage fraud cannot be a cost of doing business.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, together with its partners from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), conducted a two-year investigation into whether Bank of America knowingly made loans insured by the FHA in violation of applicable underwriting guidelines. The investigation established that the bank caused the FHA to insure loans that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance. As a result, HUD incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of losses. Moreover, many of Bank of America’s borrowers have defaulted on their FHA mortgage loans and have either lost or are in the process of losing their homes to foreclosure.

“As a Direct Endorser of FHA insured loans, Bank of America performs a critical role in home lending,” said U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch for the Eastern District of New York. “It is a gatekeeper entrusted with the authority to commit government funds earmarked for facilitating mortgage lending to first-time and low-income homebuyers, senior citizen homeowners and others seeking or owning homes throughout the nation, including many who live in the Eastern District of New York. In obtaining a payment of $800 million and sweeping relief for troubled homeowners, we have not just secured a meaningful remedy for the bank’s conduct, but have sent a powerful message of deterrence.”

“Bank of America failed to make accurate and complete disclosure to investors and its illegal conduct kept investors in the dark,” said Rhea Kemble Dignam, Regional Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Office. “Requiring an admission of wrongdoing as part of Bank of America’s agreement to resolve the SEC charges filed today provides an additional level of accountability for its violation of the federal securities laws.”

“Today’s settlement with Bank of America is another important step in the Obama Administration’s efforts to provide relief to American homeowners who were hurt during the housing crisis,” said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro. “This global settlement will strengthen the FHA fund and Ginnie Mae, and it will provide $7 billion in consumer relief with a focus on helping borrowers in areas that were the hardest hit during the crisis. HUD will continue working with the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, and other partners to take appropriate action to hold financial institutions accountable and provide consumers with the relief they need to stay in their homes. HUD remains committed to solidifying the housing recovery and creating more opportunities for Americans to succeed.”

“Bank of America and the banks it bought securitized billions of dollars of defective mortgages,” said Acting Inspector General Michael P. Stephens of the FHFA-OIG. “Investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suffered enormous losses by purchasing RMBS from Bank of America, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch not knowing about those defects. Today’s settlement is a significant, but by no means final step by FHFA-OIG and its law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who committed acts of fraud and deceit.”

The attorneys general of California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland and New York also conducted related investigations that were critical to bringing about this settlement. In addition, the settlement resolves investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and litigation filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC).

The RMBS Working Group is a federal and state law enforcement effort focused on investigating fraud and abuse in the RMBS market that helped lead to the 2008 financial crisis. The RMBS Working Group brings together more than 200 attorneys, investigators, analysts and staff from dozens of state and federal agencies including the Department of Justice, 10 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD’s Office of Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and more than 10 state attorneys general offices around the country.

The RMBS Working Group is led by Director Geoffrey Graber and five co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement Andrew Ceresney, U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado John Walsh and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Investigations were led by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Leticia Vandehaar of the District of New Jersey; Dan Ryan and Mark Odulio of the Western District of North Carolina; George Cardona and Lee Weidman of the Central District of Carolina; Richard Hayes and Kenneth Abell of the Eastern District of New York; and Pierre Armand and Jaimie Nawaday of the Southern District of New York.

Learn more about the RMBS Working Group and the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force at: www.stopfraud.gov .

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, the Attorney General for the State of New York, Thomas E. Perez, the U.S. Secretary of Labor (“DOL”), and Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the Division of Enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), announced today proposed settlements of civil lawsuits against and investigations of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (“BNYM” or the “Bank”) alleging that BNYM engaged in fraud and other misconduct when providing foreign exchange (“FX”) services to its customers. Specifically, BNYM agreed to pay a total of $714 million to settle lawsuits brought by the United States and New York State, private class action lawsuits brought by BNYM customers, and investigations by the SEC and DOL, all of which concern BNYM’s misconduct in connection with its standing instruction (“SI”) FX product. As part of the proposed settlement with the United States and the settlement with New York State, BNYM admits to and accepts responsibility for conduct alleged in the civil fraud lawsuits, including that contrary to representations to clients that it provided “best rates” and “best execution,” the Bank actually gave clients the worst reported interbank rates of the trading day. BNYM must terminate its employment relationship with certain executives with responsibilities related to the SI product, including DAVID NICHOLS (“NICHOLS”), who is a defendant in the United States’ lawsuit, and must reform its practices further to improve and increase the information provided to customers. NICHOLS also admits and accepts responsibility for conduct alleged in the United States’ complaint. The proposed settlement of the United States’ civil fraud lawsuit and proposed settlements of the customer class action lawsuits are subject to court approval. The United States submitted its proposed settlement to United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan today for review and approval.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “The Bank of New York Mellon’s custody clients, many of whom are public pension funds and non-profit organizations, trusted the Bank to be honest about the financial services it was providing and to deal with them fairly. BNYM and its executives, motivated by outsized profits and bonuses, breached this trust and repeatedly misled clients to believe that the pricing they were getting on foreign exchange was far better than it actually was. The Bank, after three years of litigation, has finally admitted what was always clear from the evidence – contrary to its various representations, including a claim of ‘best rates,’ the bank in fact gave clients prices at or near the worst interbank rates reported during the trading day. The bank repeatedly deceived its customers and is paying a heavy penalty for it. We will not hesitate to pursue and punish financial institutions and their executives who exploit their customer base to improve their bottom lines.”

Attorney General Schneiderman said: “Investors count on financial institutions to tell them the truth about how their investments are being managed. The Bank of New York Mellon misled customers and traded at their expense. Today’s settlement shows that institutions and individuals responsible for defrauding investors will be held accountable and will face serious consequences for their wrongdoing. This excellent outcome also shows what can be achieved when law enforcement agencies collaborate on an important matter such as this one.”

U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez said: “This case is a reminder that financial institutions charged with safeguarding retirement plan assets sometimes put the institution’s interests ahead of those of the investors they represent. Today’s settlement offers more proof that when they do so, we at the department along with our colleagues at federal and state agencies will hold them accountable.”

SEC Division of Enforcement Director Andrew J. Ceresney said: “BNYM misled registered investment company clients regarding its pricing of their foreign currency transactions. The bank said that it priced transactions according to ‘best execution standards’ and at market rates at the times of the trades, but in fact priced these transactions near the end of the day at or near the worst rates reported during the entire trading day.”

On October 4, 2011, the United States and New York State each filed civil fraud lawsuits against BNYM, one of the world’s largest custody banks, alleging that BNYM engaged in a scheme to defraud custodial clients who used BNYM’s FX services since at least 2001. The United States amended its complaint in 2012 to add as a defendant NICHOLS, a Managing Director at BNYM who had responsibilities with respect to BNYM’s representations to clients about the SI product.

The United States’ lawsuit was brought under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), which authorizes the United States to recover civil penalties for frauds involving or affecting financial institutions. This Office has pioneered the use of FIRREA to civilly prosecute financial institutions and their executives for engaging in fraud. Judge Kaplan issued a landmark decision in April 2013 endorsing the Government’s use of FIRREA in this case to pursue a financial institution for engaging in fraudulent conduct affecting its own federally insured deposits by putting them at risk. Two other Southern District of New York judges have followed Judge Kaplan’s decision in other financial fraud cases brought by this Office.

New York State’s lawsuit was brought pursuant to the Martin Act, which permits the State to seek damages and other relief for fraud.

As outlined in the lawsuits, BNYM offers FX services to its custodial clients, for whom it holds domestic and international financial assets, including currency. In particular, BNYM offers the SI product, pursuant to which BNYM automatically provides currency exchange on an as-needed basis when, for example, the client buys or sells foreign assets.

The complaints allege that BNYM provided its clients with very limited information about how it determined what currency exchange rates or prices would be used for standing instruction FX, and that what little information BNYM did provide to clients about pricing was false, incomplete, and/or misleading. For example, the complaints allege that BNYM’s FX executives, including NICHOLS, misled clients by representing that the product offered “best execution,” which is commonly understood to mean that the client receives the best available market price at the time that the currency trade is executed. As explained in the complaints, instead of providing clients with the most favorable prices available at the time the trades were executed, BNYM actually gave its SI clients the worst prices — ones at the outer margins of the interbank daily range. According to the complaints, BNYM generated enormous profits based on the difference or “spread” between the actual interbank rate at the time of execution and the less favorable rates it gave to SI clients.

In January 2012, the United States entered into a partial settlement with BNYM resolving the Government’s injunctive claims and requiring the Bank to reform its business practices. In particular, BNYM was required, among other things, to disclose how SI transactions were priced, to make certain pricing data available to custodial clients, and to stop describing the SI product as “free” or claiming that it offered “best execution.”

Pursuant to the proposed settlements and other agreements, BNYM will pay a total of $714 million, of which $335 million will collectively be paid to the United States and New York State. Pursuant to the proposed settlement with the United States, BNYM will pay a civil penalty of $167.5 million. BNYM will similarly pay $167.5 million to the State of New York, nearly all of which will be directed to a fund that will compensate BNYM’s customers who were victims of BNYM’s misconduct. Two New York State agencies – the New York State Deferred Compensation Plan and the State University of New York (“SUNY”) – were among the victims and will be compensated for their losses.

BNYM will also pay $335 million to resolve private class action lawsuits filed by the Bank’s customers.

To resolve DOL’s claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), BNYM will pay $14 million to the Bank’s ERISA plan customers (in addition to approximately $70 million that will be distributed to ERISA plan customers through the other settlements).

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement has reached a preliminary agreement with BNYM to recommend to the Commission a settlement of the SEC’s investigation concerning BNYM’s SI product. The settlement will include an administrative order finding that, in violation of Sections 31(a) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act, BNYM prepared and provided its registered investment company clients with trade confirmations and monthly transaction reports that were misleading in light of the representations made because they did not specify the time the standing instruction transactions were executed or provide information about how specific rates were assigned. The proposed settlement is subject to finalization, review and approval by the Commission. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, BNYM will pay $30 million to the SEC.

In connection with the proposed settlements of the United States’ lawsuit and the settlement of New York State’s lawsuit, BNYM admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility for committing conduct alleged in the federal and state complaints, including the following:

How BNYM Priced Standing Instruction Foreign Exchange Transactions

1) If the client was purchasing foreign currency, the client received a price at or close to the highest reported interbank rate for that day or session (at or near the least favorable interbank price for the client reported during the trading day or session), and if the client was selling foreign currency, the client received a price at or close to the lowest reported interbank rate of the day or session (also at or near the least favorable interbank price for the client reported during the trading day or session).

2) Because SI clients received pricing at or near the high end of the reported interbank range for their currency purchases and at or near the low end of the reported interbank range for their sales, the Bank was generally buying low from, and selling high to, its own clients. The Bank recorded the difference or “spread” between the rates it gave clients and the interbank market price at the time the SI transactions were priced as “sales margin.”

BNYM’s Representations to Its Clients

1) The Bank made numerous representations to existing and potential clients concerning the SI product, including:

(i) The service provided “benefits” to its clients, including “FX execution according to best execution standards.”

(ii) The Bank “ensures best execution on foreign exchange transactions through the following mechanisms: As a major market participant, the Bank is actively engaged in making markets and taking position in numerous currencies so that we can provide the best rates for our clients.”

(iii) “Understanding the fiduciary role of the fund manager, it is our goal to provide best execution for all foreign exchange executed in support of our clients’ transactions.”

(iv) “We price foreign exchange at levels generally reflecting the interbank market at the time the trade is executed by the foreign exchange desk.”

(v) The Bank’s “primary focus is on securing the best possible rates for our clients rather than on trading for the bank’s own account.”

BNYM Did Not Provide Its SI Clients with the Best Price

1) Contrary to the representations set forth above, including that BNYM offered “best rates,” the Bank gave SI clients prices that were at or near the worst interbank rates reported during the trading day or session.

2) The Bank generally did not disclose its SI FX pricing methodology discussed above to its custodial clients or their investment managers.

3) The Bank was aware that many clients did not fully understand the Bank’s pricing methodology for SI transactions.

4) The Bank was aware that many market participants equated “best execution” with best price, or considered best price to be one of the most important factors in determining best execution.

As part of the proposed settlement with the United States, NICHOLS also admits, acknowledges and accepts responsibility for conduct alleged in the United States’ complaint, including the following:

1) From 2002 through 2011, NICHOLS was a Managing Director at the Bank who, among other duties, participated in the drafting and dissemination of the Bank’s description of “best execution” and the SI product. The description was disseminated to certain existing and prospective custody clients through responses to requests for proposals (“RFP”) and in other communications, and included the following statements:

(i) “Understanding the fiduciary role of the fund manager, it is our goal to provide best execution for all foreign exchange executed in support of our clients’ transactions.”

(ii) “Since The Bank of New York Mellon is one of the largest global custodians, our clients gain the ongoing benefit of aggregation of transactions across our broad customer base; accordingly, we price foreign exchange at levels generally reflecting the interbank market at the time the trade is executed by the foreign exchange desk.”

(iii) “Best execution encompasses a variety of services designed to maximize the proceeds of each trade, while containing inherent risks and the total cost of processing.”

2) NICHOLS had oversight of the Global Markets website and approved the content, which included the following statement: the Bank’s SI clients “benefit from . . . FX execution according to best execution standards.”

3) NICHOLS understood how the Bank priced SI transactions and also knew:

(i) The Bank generally did not disclose its SI FX pricing methodology discussed above to its custodial clients or their investment managers.

(ii) Many clients did not fully understand the Bank’s pricing methodology for SI transactions.

(iii) Many market participants equated “best execution” with best price, or considered best price to be one of the most important factors in determining best execution.

As part of the proposed U.S. and State settlement, BNYM must terminate its employment relationship with executives involved in the conduct alleged in the lawsuit, including NICHOLS. BNYM must also make further reforms to its business practices by providing clients additional pricing information about new standing instruction services BNYM currently offers to clients.

* * *

Mr. Bharara thanked the New York Attorney General’s Office as well as counsel for the private litigants with whom this Office cooperated to litigate the multiple FX cases against the Bank and bring them to a successful conclusion.

The United States’ FIRREA lawsuit arose in part from a whistleblower who filed a declaration pursuant to FIRREA.

The United States’ case has been handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Pierre G. Armand, Lawrence H. Fogelman, Jeffrey K. Powell, and Arastu Chaudhury are in charge of the case.

ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION, Md., – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will develop a new automated criminal history system for the state of Minnesota that will enhance access to critical data, enabling criminal justice agencies to better execute their mission.

Under an agreement signed with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Boeing will partner with the BCA to develop improved security controls for critical data, proactive monitoring and alerts, and performance metrics that easily integrate with other systems.

“Boeing has teamed with state law enforcement to implement the same trusted, state of the art systems used by the federal law enforcement community,” said Jeff Brown, director of Boeing’s Intelligence Systems Group. “This agreement with Minnesota is a strategic investment in the future of state and local law enforcement.”

The new system will replace an outdated criminal history system currently used by the state. The contract incorporates Boeing’s Entity Management Framework, an application framework for building systems to track the analytics information in an enterprise. It also utilizes Twister, a data integration tool kit providing both data consolidation and data federation.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Defense, Space & Security is one of the world’s largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Defense, Space & Security is a $31 billion business with 53,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

The Disclosure and Transparency Rules (“DTR”) made by the Financial Conduct Authority govern amongst other matters the disclosure of inside information. Accordingly in compliance with Rule 2.2, BP plc makes the following announcement

Five years on from the Deepwater Horizon accident and spill in 2010, BP has reached agreements in principle to settle all federal and state claims arising from the event.

BP today announced that its US Upstream subsidiary, BP Exploration and Production Inc (BPXP) has executed the agreements with the US federal government and five Gulf Coast states.

The agreement with the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas also includes settlement of claims made by more than 400 local government entities.

The principal payments are as follows:

BPXP is to pay the United States a civil penalty of $5.5 billion under the Clean Water Act (CWA) – payable over 15 years.
BPXP will pay $7.1 billion to the United States and the five Gulf states over 15 years for natural resource damages (NRD). This is in addition to the $1 billion already committed for early restoration. BPXP will also set aside an additional amount of $232 million to be added to the NRD interest payment at the end of the payment period to cover any further natural resource damages that are unknown at the time of the agreement.
A total of $4.9 billion will be paid over 18 years to settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast states.
Up to $1 billion will be paid to resolve claims made by more than 400 local government entities.
The expected impact of these agreements would be to increase the cumulative pre-tax charge associated with the Deepwater Horizon accident and spill by around $10 billion from $43.8 billion at the end of the first quarter. Separately to these agreements, the total charge reported in BP’s second quarter results will also reflect other items including charges for additional business economic loss determinations.

The principal payments arising from the agreements will be made over extended periods of time as set out in the attached schedule of payments.

NRD and CWA payments are scheduled to start 12 months after the agreements becomes final. Total payments for NRD, CWA and State claims will be made at a rate of around $1.1 billion a year for the majority of the payment period.

Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP’s chairman, said: “Five years ago we committed to restore the Gulf economy and environment and we have worked ever since to deliver on that promise. We have made significant progress, and with this agreement we provide a path to closure for BP and the Gulf. It resolves the company’s largest remaining legal exposures, provides clarity on costs and creates certainty of payment for all parties involved.

“In deciding to follow this path, the Board has balanced the risks, timing and consequences associated with many years of litigation against its wish for the company to be able to set a clear course for the future.

“The Board therefore believes that this agreement is in the best long-term interest of BP and its shareholders. The Board set out its position on the dividend at the first quarter and this remains unchanged by the agreement.”

Bob Dudley, BP’s group chief executive, said: “This is a realistic outcome which provides clarity and certainty for all parties.

“For BP, this agreement will resolve the largest liabilities remaining from the tragic accident and enable BP to focus on safely delivering the energy the world needs.

“For the United States and the Gulf in particular, this agreement will deliver a significant income stream over many years for further restoration of natural resources and for losses related to the spill.

“When concluded, this will resolve not only the Clean Water Act proceedings but also the Natural Resource Damage claims as well as other claims brought by Gulf States and local government entities.”

BP’s chief financial officer, Brian Gilvary, said: “The negotiations were carried out with the goal of reaching a collective solution that would be acceptable for all parties. For BP this will provide certainty with respect to BP’s financial obligations for the matters settled, particularly with the ability to spread payments smoothly over many years.

“The impact of the settlement on our balance sheet and cashflow will be manageable and enables BP to continue to invest in and grow its business, underpinned by a resilient and robust financial framework.”

The agreements in principle are subject to execution of definitive agreements. These will comprise a Consent Decree with the United States and Gulf states with respect to the civil penalty and natural resource damages, a settlement agreement with five Gulf states with respect to State and local claims for economic and property losses, and release agreements with local government entities.

The Consent Decree will be subject to public comment and final court approval. The Consent Decree and settlement agreement with the Gulf states are conditional upon each other and neither will become effective unless (1) there is final court approval for the Consent Decree and (2) local government entities execute releases to BP’s satisfaction.

The agreements do not cover the remaining costs of the 2012 class action settlements with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for economic and property damage and medical claims. They also do not cover claims by individuals and businesses that opted out of the 2012 settlements and/or whose claims were excluded from them. BP will continue to defend those claims vigorously. Today’s agreements in principle also do not resolve private securities litigation pending in MDL 2185.

Interest will accrue at a fixed rate on the unpaid balance of the civil penalty and natural resource damages payments, compounded annually and payable in years 15 (CWA) and 16 (NRD).

The interest rate will be fixed at the average market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 2-year and 3-year constant maturities, quoted on an investment basis by the US Federal Reserve (H.15 Release), for the period from 28 May 2014 to 27 May 2015.

To address possible natural resource damages unknown at the time of the settlement, beginning ten years after the settlement, the federal government and the Gulf states may request accelerated payment of accrued but unpaid interest on the natural resource damages payments.

Parent company guarantees for these payments will be provided by BP Corporation North America Inc. as the primary guarantor and BP p.l.c. as the secondary guarantor.

The federal government and the Gulf states may jointly elect to accelerate the civil penalty and natural resource damages payments in the event of a change of control or insolvency of BP p.l.c.

In addition to these agreed settlement payments, set out in the table above and the payment of up to $1 billion for local government claims, BPXP has also agreed to pay $350 million to cover outstanding NRD assessment costs and $250 million to cover the full settlement of outstanding response costs, claims related to the False Claims Act and royalties owed for the Macondo well. These additional payments will be paid over nine years, beginning in 2015.

The Deepwater Horizon Trust Fund, established to meet claims in 2010 after the oil spill, is expected to be used to make payments (other than CWA fines and penalties), including $1 billion of state claims and up to $1 billion to settle local claims.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Partnership for a New American Economy, American Farm Bureau Federation, Business Roundtable, AmericanHort, Western Growers, and the National Association of Manufacturers today urged Congress and the administration to work together to enact immigration reform during a Day of Action with events in Washington, D.C. and in more than 60 congressional districts across 25 states.

The national press conference in Washington, D.C. featured leading business association CEOs discussing the critical need for immigration reform to drive job creation and economic growth in the United States. Local events across the country, including, among other states, Arkansas, California, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin featured representatives from state and local employer associations, state farm bureaus, local businesses, and other industry leaders. The coordinated events aim to show that, across industries, sectors, and geographies, the business community needs our immigration laws to be modernized.

“While our lawmakers are deadlocked on this issue, business leaders are more determined than ever to fix our immigration system,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We need meaningful immigration reform to revitalize our economy and to remain a nation ruled by law, guided by principle, and driven by compassion and common sense. We’re going to continue to make the case in the nation’s capital and in every corner of this country, and will use every tool and resource at our disposal. We’re not going to let up until the job gets done.”

“Immigration reform can immediately make our businesses and workers more competitive and should be done as soon as possible,” said Business Roundtable President John Engler. “Our respective organizations understand the impact a broken immigration system is having on America’s economy and are committed to reform that boosts economic growth and job creation and brings best-in-the-world talent right here to America.”

“Our problems will not run away from us – it is time we face them head on and do the hard work necessary to make immigration reform a reality,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “It’s good for our economy, critical to innovation, and at the core of who we are as a nation. Manufacturers will not give up until immigration reform crosses the finish line.”

“The effect of inaction on immigration reform is devastating to the fresh produce industry and consumers. We rely on people to plant and harvest the nutritious and domestic supply of food for Americans and for export. Many of these workers are unauthorized, but are willing and able to do the work. It’s been demonstrated many times that Americans won’t work in the fields, so why won’t our elected officials provide us the means to have a legal, reliable workforce? If no solution is provided, production will continue to move overseas along with the jobs agriculture supports in rural communities across America,” said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers.

“The need for immigration reform is not going to go away – and conservative leaders and business owners from every corner of the country agree,” said Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the Partnership for a New American Economy. “It’s time for leaders in Congress to listen to their constituents and do what’s best for our economy: pass immigration reform now.”

“As a nation, we can’t afford to continue with an immigration system we’ve long outgrown and is working more and more against our overall national interest,” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “We urge Congress and the administration to work together and with us to achieve real immigration reform that addresses the needs of farmers, the economy, as well as the country’s need for border security.”

About the National Day of Action for Immigration Reform

Today, a coalition of leading business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Partnership for a New American Economy, American Farm Bureau Federation, Business Roundtable, AmericanHort, Western Growers, and the National Association of Manufacturers launched a Day of Action for immigration reform. These compelling business voices are best positioned to speak on why immigration reform is in our national interest: we need changes to our immigration laws in order to drive job creation and economic growth for our country.

Despite a stalemate in Washington, business leaders are more united than ever, and we are not giving up on the importance of fixing this problem. We join today to deliver the message to the administration and members of Congress that immigration reform is an economic imperative. In order to drive this message home, we coordinated a Washington, D.C. national press conference with events in more than 60 congressional districts in 25 states – all in a single day.

Today’s national press conference highlights leading business association CEOs talking about the need for reform. The in-district events feature state and local employer associations, state farm bureaus, local businesses, and industry leaders. The goal is visible activity across the country, including, among other states, Arkansas, California, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. The coordinated events aim to show that, across industries, sectors, and geographies, the business community needs our immigration laws to be modernized.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

SAN RAMON, Calif. — A Canadian court has ruled that the fraudulent Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation cannot be enforced against Chevron Canada Limited, an indirect subsidiary. The court found that Chevron Canada Limited is a separate entity from Chevron Corporation, not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit and not a debtor to the judgment. In its decision, the court stated, “Chevron [Corporation] and Chevron Canada are separate legal entities with separate rights and obligations.” As a result, the court found that “plaintiffs’ claim cannot succeed against Chevron Canada” and dismissed the claim against it.

In a related ruling, the court also rejected an attempt by the plaintiffs to prohibit Chevron Corporation from using the extensive evidence of fraud committed by the plaintiffs as part of the company’s defense against the recognition and enforcement action in Canada.

“Once again, the plaintiffs’ attempts to enforce their fraudulent judgment have been rebuked,” said R. Hewitt Pate, vice president and general counsel, Chevron Corporation. “We are confident that any jurisdiction that examines the facts of this case and the misconduct committed by the plaintiffs will find the Ecuadorian judgment illegitimate and unenforceable.”

In its decision, the Canadian court referenced the 2014 U.S. federal court decision, which found that a judgment issued against Chevron Corporation by a court in Ecuador was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, including extortion, money laundering, wire fraud, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The U.S. court also prohibited the Ecuadorian judgment from being enforced in the United States. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2016, which stated that Donziger and his team engaged in a “parade of corrupt actions…including coercion, fraud and bribery.”

Because Chevron Corporation has no assets in Ecuador, the plaintiffs, led by American attorney Steven Donziger, are attempting to enforce the fraudulent judgment in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Argentina and Brazil. In Canada, Donziger and his team were seeking to enforce the judgment against both Chevron Corporation, which has no assets in Canada, and Chevron Canada Limited, which is not a party to the Ecuadorian lawsuit. Today’s decision prevents them from pursuing Chevron Canada Limited’s assets.

The Ecuadorian judgment is being questioned in other jurisdictions as well. In 2015, Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office issued a recommendation to the country’s Superior Court of Justice that the judgment not be recognized for enforcement, finding that it was “issued irregularly, especially under uncontested acts of corruption” and that recognizing it would violate Brazilian and “international public order.” Similarly, in 2016, Argentina’s public prosecutor’s office recommended that its National Court reject the effort to recognize the Ecuadorian judgment in that country.

Chevron Corporation is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies. Through its subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide, the company is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. Chevron explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and lubricants; manufactures and sells petrochemicals and additives; generates power; and develops and deploys technologies that enhance business value in every aspect of the company’s operations. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.

We, the leaders of the Group of Seven, met in Cornwall on 11-13 June 2021 determined to beat COVID-19 and build back better. We remembered everyone who has been lost to the pandemic and paid tribute to those still striving to overcome it. Inspired by their example of collaboration and determination, we gathered united by the principle that brought us together originally, that shared beliefs and shared responsibilities are the bedrock of leadership and prosperity. Guided by this, our enduring ideals as free open societies and democracies, and by our commitment to multilateralism, we have agreed a shared G7 agenda for global action to:

End the pandemic and prepare for the future by driving an intensified international effort, starting immediately, to vaccinate the world by getting as many safe vaccines to as many people as possible as fast as possible. Total G7 commitments since the start of the pandemic provide for a total of over two billion vaccine doses, with the commitments since we last met in February 2021, including here in Carbis Bay, providing for one billion doses over the next year. At the same time we will create the appropriate frameworks to strengthen our collective defences against threats to global health by: increasing and coordinating on global manufacturing capacity on all continents; improving early warning systems; and support science in a mission to shorten the cycle for the development of safe and effective vaccines, treatments and tests from 300 to 100 days.
Reinvigorate our economies by advancing recovery plans that build on the $12 trillion of support we have put in place during the pandemic. We will continue to support our economies for as long as is necessary, shifting the focus of our support from crisis response to promoting growth into the future, with plans that create jobs, invest in infrastructure, drive innovation, support people, and level up so that no place or person, irrespective of age, ethnicity or gender is left behind. This has not been the case with past global crises, and we are determined that this time it will be different.
Secure our future prosperity by championing freer, fairer trade within a reformed trading system, a more resilient global economy, and a fairer global tax system that reverses the race to the bottom. We will collaborate to ensure future frontiers of the global economy and society, from cyber space to outer space, increase the prosperity and wellbeing of all people while upholding our values as open societies. We are convinced of the potential of technological transformation for the common good in accordance with our shared values.
Protect our planet by supporting a green revolution that creates jobs, cuts emissions and seeks to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees. We commit to net zero no later than 2050, halving our collective emissions over the two decades to 2030, increasing and improving climate finance to 2025; and to conserve or protect at least 30 percent of our land and oceans by 2030. We acknowledge our duty to safeguard the planet for future generations.
Strengthen our partnerships with others around the world. We will develop a new partnership to build back better for the world, through a step change in our approach to investment for infrastructure, including through an initiative for clean and green growth. We are resolved to deepen our current partnership to a new deal with Africa, including by magnifying support from the International Monetary Fund for countries most in need to support our aim to reach a total global ambition of $100 billion.
Embrace our values as an enduring foundation for success in an ever changing world. We will harness the power of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights to answer the biggest questions and overcome the greatest challenges. We will do this in a way that values the individual and promotes equality, especially gender equality, including by supporting a target to get 40 million more girls into education and with at least $2¾ billion for the Global Partnership for Education.
We shall seek to advance this open agenda in collaboration with other countries and within the multilateral rules-based system. In particular, we look forward to working alongside our G20 partners and with all relevant International Organisations to secure a cleaner, greener, freer, fairer and safer future for our people and planet.

INTRODUCTION

1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven, met together in Cornwall, United Kingdom on 11-13 June 2021 at a critical juncture for our people and planet.

2. We acknowledge the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 in our own societies and around the world, and that those impacts have not been felt evenly. We remember all those who have died as a result of the pandemic and pay tribute to all those continuing to work to overcome the virus.

3. United as open societies and economies and guided by our shared values of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, we commit to beating COVID-19 everywhere and building back better for all. We are firmly convinced that these values remain the best foundation for the social and economic advancement of all humanity. We affirm that by investing in our people, tackling inequalities, including gender inequality, promoting dignity and championing freedoms, we will release innovation capable of tackling the great challenges of our time.

4. Our agenda for global action is built on our commitment to international cooperation, multilateralism and an open, resilient, rules-based world order. As democratic societies we support global institutions in their efforts to protect human rights, respect the rule of law, advance gender equality, manage tensions between states, address conflict, instability and climate change, and share prosperity through trade and investment. That open and resilient international order is in turn the best guarantor of security and prosperity for our own citizens.

5. We were joined in Cornwall by the Leaders of Australia, India, the Republic of Korea and South Africa, with whom we have agreed a shared statement on the value and role of open societies. We will continue to work together with these and all our partners in tackling global challenges. We reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and to working with the G20, UN and wider multilateral system to deliver a strong, sustainable, resilient and inclusive recovery.

HEALTH

6. Our immediate focus is beating COVID-19 and we set a collective goal of ending the pandemic in 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic is not under control anywhere until it is under control everywhere. In an interconnected world global health and health security threats respect no borders. We therefore commit both to strengthen global action now to fight COVID-19, and to take further tangible steps to improve our collective defences against future threats and to bolster global health and health security. This includes strengthening the World Health Organization (WHO) and supporting it in its leading and coordinating role in the global health system.

7. We recognise that the pandemic has left no one untouched, impacting not only physical health but also mental health and social wellbeing. We pay tribute to the extraordinary efforts of first responders, health workers, paid and unpaid care workers, scientists, and manufacturers who have developed and deployed COVID-19 medical tools at a pace few thought possible, opening up a path out of the pandemic. At the same time, we recognise that we have a long way to go to achieve global equitable access to these medical tools, and to manage the risks from new COVID-19 variants which have the potential to reverse our progress.

8. Recognising that ending the pandemic in 2022 will require vaccinating at least 60 per cent of the global population, we will intensify our action to save lives. Our international priority is to accelerate the rollout of safe and effective, accessible and affordable vaccines for the poorest countries, noting the role of extensive immunisation as a global public good. We reiterate our endorsement of the G20 Rome Declaration and the statement agreed by our Foreign and Development Ministers on equitable access. We will work together and with others, leveraging the full spectrum of the capability and capacity we can each deploy to support the global vaccination effort, through finance for and sharing of doses, science, ensuring accessibility through voluntary licensing, manufacturing and ensuring availability through exports, opening supply chains, and supporting final mile delivery.

9. We reaffirm our support for the ACT-A and its COVAX Facility as the primary route for providing vaccines to the poorest countries. Since the start of the pandemic, we have committed $8.6 billion to the vaccines pillar of ACT-A to finance the procurement of vaccines, including $1.9 billion since we last met in February. This provides for the equivalent of over one billion doses. We welcome the recent successful COVAX Summit co-hosted by Japan and Gavi which mobilised financing pledges exceeding the COVAX AMC target. Recognising the urgent need to speed up delivery of doses, we are committing to share at least 870 million doses directly over the next year. We will make these doses available as soon as possible and aim to deliver at least half by the end of 2021 primarily channelled through COVAX towards those in greatest need. Taken together, the dose equivalent of our financial contributions and our direct dose sharing mean that the G7’s commitments since the start of the pandemic provide for a total of over two billion vaccine doses. The commitments since we last met in February 2021 including here in Carbis Bay provide for one billion doses over the next year. We will work together with the private sector, the G20 and other countries to increase this contribution over the months to come.

10. These commitments build on our wider contributions to the global vaccination effort. These include exports from domestic production, with at least 700 million doses exported or to be exported this year, of which almost half have gone or will go to non-G7 countries, with a commitment to continue exporting in significant proportions; and the promotion of voluntary licensing and not-for-profit global production, which has so far accounted for over 95 per cent of the COVAX supply.

11. We reaffirm our support for all pillars of the ACT-A across, treatments, tests and strengthening public health systems as well as vaccines. As the G7, since our meeting in February, we have committed over $2 billion in total to the ACT-Accelerator (including vaccines), taking our collective commitment since the start of the pandemic to over $10 billion. We support discussions regarding the extension of the ACT-A mandate into 2022, noting the planned comprehensive review to optimise its effectiveness and accountability. Efforts on this scale require close monitoring of progress made by ACT-A with reliable, transparent, up-to-date and clear information on procurement and delivery to both donor and recipient countries in close partnership with regional organisations. Progress should be reported to the G20 in Rome.

12. In support of achieving our goal, we commit to an end-to-end approach to boost supply of COVID-19 tools, including vaccines, raw materials, tests, therapeutics, and personal protective equipment (PPE), through more production in more places to sustain a global supply network for this pandemic and the next. This will be based on the principles of open trade and transparency, including through terminating unnecessary trade restrictive measures and supporting open, diversified, secure and resilient supply chains. It will be backed up by a practical and pragmatic approach to breaking down bottlenecks that are holding back the efficient use of current production capacity, as well as promoting partnerships to increase capacity further. To this end, we will support the ACT-A Facilitation Council Working Group together with the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi, UNICEF and other partners such as the Medicines Patent Pool and the private sector, to coordinate a global vaccine supply network to optimise manufacturing capacities for safe and effective vaccines and other pandemic tools, and to share information about supply chains. Emphasising the need for equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, we will support manufacturing in low income countries and, noting the importance of intellectual property in this regard, we will engage constructively with discussions at the WTO on the role of intellectual property, including by working consistently within the TRIPS agreement and the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and Public Health. We note the positive impact that voluntary licensing and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms have already made to increasing global supply. We note the positive impact that voluntary licensing and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms have already made to increasing global supply. We will explore all options to ensure affordable and accessible COVID-19 tools for the poorest countries, including non-profit production, tiered and transparent pricing, and sharing by manufacturers of a proportion of production with COVAX, noting the previous precedent of the 10 per cent target in relation to influenza. We support efforts to accelerate manufacturing capacities of COVID-19 tools on all continents, encouraging new partnerships based on voluntary licensing and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms and in particular will strive to support African efforts to establish regional manufacturing hubs. We will continue to work with partners, regional organisations and recipient countries, including through COVAX, to boost country-readiness, and will maintain our efforts to support vaccine confidence.

13. To get and stay ahead of the virus, we commit to continue our investment in cutting edge research and innovation, seeking to ensure that global vaccines remain effective against variants of concern, and that effective tests and treatments are available. To this end, we will boost global surveillance and genomic sequencing and swift information sharing needed to enable the rapid detection to combat the virus and its emerging variants. G7 countries should extend every effort to achieve, wherever possible, a level of genomic sequencing of at least 10 per cent of all new positive COVID-19 samples during the pandemic phase and share genomic sequencing information with existing global databases.

14. Alongside the above, we will continue and enhance our commitments to support fragile countries in dealing with the pandemic and other health challenges. This includes supporting ACT-A partners such as The Global Fund and Unitaid which have played a crucial role in delivering lifesaving medical and other supplies, including oxygen, tests, therapeutics and PPE, and assisting countries together with WHO to strengthen their health systems, build capacity, manage outbreaks and prevent disease spread. We call on the World Bank Group and the other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to increase the speed of their financial support, and will continue to support ACT-A in this regard.

15. Alongside responding to the current pandemic, we must act now to strengthen the global health and health security system to be better prepared for future pandemics and to tackle long standing global health threats, including Antimicrobial Resistance. We welcome the Rome Declaration, the measures set out within the ‘Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies’ Resolution as adopted at the 74th World Health Assembly, acknowledge the bold recommendations of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), and the work of the International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHR Review Committee) and Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee (IOAC). We look forward to continuing to work with the G20, UN, WHO, WTO and other relevant international organisations, in accordance with their mandates and rules for decision making, to make progress in the swift implementation of recommendations, and to seek the necessary multilateral action, including exploring the potential value of a treaty. We look forward to the special session on pandemic preparedness in the Autumn, as agreed at the World Health Assembly.

16. As G7 countries, we acknowledge our particular role and responsibilities in international efforts to strengthen the global health system, and commit to harnessing our unique strengths to support this. We endorse the G7 Carbis Bay Health Declaration and the G7 Health Ministers’ Communique, and the concrete actions outlined to ensure all countries are better equipped to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from health crises including in alignment with the International Health Regulations (IHR). We place particular emphasis on:

Improving integration, by strengthening a “One Health” approach across all aspects of pandemic prevention and preparedness, recognising the critical links between human and animal health and the environment.
Strengthening transparency and accountability, including reiterating our commitment to the full implementation of, and improved compliance with, the International Health Regulations 2005. This includes investigating, reporting and responding to outbreaks of unknown origin. We also call for a timely, transparent, expert-led, and science-based WHO-convened Phase 2 COVID-19 Origins study including, as recommended by the experts’ report, in China.
Improving the speed of response by developing global protocols which trigger collective action in the event of a future pandemic.
Ensuring fairness, inclusion and equity, including the empowerment and leadership of women and minorities in the health and care sectors, and addressing the links between health crises and wider social determinants of health such as poverty and structural inequalities, and leaving no one behind by advancing the achievement of Universal Health Coverage.
Increasing the resilience of global health systems to deal with outbreaks of emerging and enduring pathogens, including by investing in the health and care workforce worldwide to build capacity and keep health care workers safe.
Strengthening financing models to support longer-term preparedness, sustainable global health and health security, in particular but not limited to the WHO. We will explore options for building consensus this year, around sustainable global health and health security financing, supported by robust financial reporting, increased and defined accountability, and oversight. We ask our Finance Ministers to work with others, the G20 and its High Level Independent Panel (HLIP) to make progress in this regard. We will explore options to strengthen global accountability, tracking and allocation of global health security financing, including the IPPPR recommendation toward a Global Health Threats Council.
17. The G7 has a leading role to play in deploying our collective scientific capabilities as part of an enhanced global health response. Data can play a transformative role in supporting effective early warning and rapid response to health crises. We therefore need to improve the quality and coverage of international, regional and national pathogen surveillance to enable us to gather, share and analyse data to identify new variants in our fight against the current pandemic, and to detect and monitor future pathogens with pandemic potential. We support the establishment of the international pathogen surveillance network – a global pandemic radar – and welcome the WHO’s commitment to work with experts and countries to help achieve this, based on a common framework, including standards and rules for sharing data, that builds on existing detection systems such as the influenza and polio programmes but with greater capacity for genomic sequencing and broader in coverage. We note the report to the Presidency on pathogen surveillance by Sir Jeremy Farrar. To this end we welcome the WHO’s Global Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, as well as additional centres as part of this network. This will also need to be supported by capability building at the regional level, thereby increasing global sequencing and pathogen surveillance capacities across the world. We ask that the WHO reports back to Leaders on the progress of the network by the end of this year as part of the G20 process.

18. It is essential that we maintain and build upon the extraordinary innovation, scientific power, and collaboration that we have seen in the response to this pandemic, including the development of COVID-19 vaccines in just over 300 days. As G7 members we have a particular role to play in seeking to make safe and effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines even more quickly available in the future. Recognising the unpredictable nature of future health emergencies, in the event of a future pandemic we will seek to create an adequate framework to have safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics available within 100 days, consistent with our core principles around trade and transparency of equitable access, and high regulatory standards. We thank the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser and his G7 counterparts, the international organisations, industry representatives and expert advisers involved in the partnership on pandemic preparedness convened by the UK Presidency and note their practical proposals. We welcome the 100 Days Mission, and recognise that this will require continued, concerted collaboration between the public and private sectors, and the leadership of international health organisations, to make what has been exceptional during this crisis become routine in the future. We invite G7 Chief Scientific Advisers or equivalents to review progress and report to Leaders before the end of the year.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND JOBS

19. Our plans for the recovery from COVID-19 need to put us on a path to strong, sustainable, balanced, inclusive and resilient growth by not only addressing the immediate challenges arising from the pandemic, but also the long-term shifts in the global economy and society, including demographic, technological, and environmental trends, and inequalities between and within countries, many of which have been magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognising the interconnected nature of these global challenges, we are taking an integrated approach to our shared commitments.

20. To mitigate the impact of the pandemic, we have provided unprecedented support to citizens and businesses, including to retain jobs and support incomes and keep businesses afloat, totalling over $12 trillion including fiscal support and liquidity measures. We will continue to support our economies for as long as is necessary, shifting the focus of our support from crisis response to promoting strong, resilient, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth into the future. Once the recovery is firmly established, we need to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances to enable us to respond to future crises and address longer-term structural challenges, including for the benefit of future generations.

21. We share key priorities including protecting, supporting and creating decent jobs, and investing in quality infrastructure, innovation, training and skills and addressing inequalities. We will continue to exchange ideas and share best practices to ensure we learn from each other and update our approaches through different phases of the recovery. We thank Lord Nick Stern for his paper on “G7 leadership for sustainable, resilient and inclusive economic recovery and growth” as commissioned by the UK G7 Presidency. At the heart of our agenda for economic growth and recovery is a green and digital transformation that will increase productivity, create new decent and quality jobs, cut greenhouse gas emissions, improve our resilience, and protect people and the planet as we aim for net zero by 2050.

22. We need a tax system that is fair across the world. We endorse the historic commitment made by the G7 on 5 June. We will now continue the discussion to reach consensus on a global agreement on an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights and an ambitious global minimum tax of at least 15 per cent on a country-by-country basis, through the G20/OECD inclusive framework and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. With this, we have taken a significant step towards creating a fairer tax system fit for the 21st century, and reversing a 40-year race to the bottom. Our collaboration will create a stronger level playing field, and it will help raise more tax revenue to support investment and it will crack down on tax avoidance.

23. We recognise the importance to the global economy of safely restarting international travel, by land, air and sea, and multilateral efforts to achieve this, including new public health guidance on international travel by the WHO, International Civil Aviation Organisation and International Maritime Organisation. We recognise that this will need a set of common standards for travel including interoperability and mutual recognition of digital applications, testing requirements, recognition of vaccination status including exemptions and comparable criteria for when responsive measures may be required. We welcome G7 Transport and Health Ministers’ ongoing discussions and ask them to deepen cooperation to support a safe reopening.

24. As leaders accountable to all our citizens, we are determined to ensure our plans for recovery build back better for all including by strengthening education and upskilling, and facilitating labour market participation and transitions to ‘level up’ our economies so that no geographic region or person, irrespective of their gender, age, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation or economic status, is left behind. We recognise this has not always been the case with recoveries from previous global crises, and are together united in our resolve that this time our response should continue to be different.

25. While our support during the pandemic has helped to keep millions of people in employment, the crisis has meant that many have still lost their jobs, and the impact has not been felt equally, including with respect to young people, women and disadvantaged groups, as well as atypical and low-skilled workers. The crisis has also shown the importance of social protection systems and the critical role and incredible contribution of caregivers in our societies, often unpaid and often disproportionately women, and the importance of improving decent working conditions for these caregivers as part of our recovery plans. At the same time, technological change is profoundly changing our labour markets. We welcome the contributions of the G7 Employment Taskforce on building back better, greener and more inclusively, including their discussions with social partners and G7 Engagement Groups, including Labour 7, Youth 7, Women 7 and Business 7 covering how we can prepare our labour markets for the future. One of the highest priorities for our ongoing cooperation will be ensuring our labour markets continue to evolve to respond to these changes and deliver decent jobs and equal opportunities for everyone, while fully respecting the ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and taking into account relevant international labour standards.

26. The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the risk to economic resilience posed by global crises and shocks. These can manifest from acute shocks, for example as a result of pandemics, and chronically, from challenges such as market imbalances and distortions. Our recoveries must ensure we build back more resilient. As we recover, these risks need addressing in a more coordinated way. We will collaborate more strongly between us and with allies on a new approach to economic resilience. We recognise climate change and growing inequalities as key risks for the global economy. We will consider mechanisms and share best practices to address risks to the resilience of the critical global supply chains, in areas such as critical minerals and semiconductors, reflecting on models used elsewhere such as stress-testing. We will also enhance our cooperation on investment security within our G7 Investment Screening Expert Group, to ensure we are resilient in our openness to all, able to tackle risks in keeping with our shared principles of open markets, transparency and competition. Our solutions will be built on our shared principles of openness, sustainability, inclusion, innovation and competition will help retain and reinforce the benefits of open markets; without them, we risk a future of normalised volatility and fragmentation in the global economy. To this end we appreciate the work by the G7 Panel on Economic Resilience, and thank the OECD for its work in support, and we will continue to work on the issues highlighted by the Panel.

FREE AND FAIR TRADE

27. We stand united in our commitment to free and fair trade as foundational principles and objectives of the rules-based multilateral system. We agree on the need for the world’s leading democratic nations to unite behind a shared vision to ensure the multilateral trading system is reformed, with a modernised rulebook and a reformed World Trade Organization (WTO) at its centre, to be free and fair for all, more sustainable, resilient and responsive to the needs of global citizens. We will maintain a particular focus on ensuring that the prosperity trade can bring is felt in all parts of our countries and by all peoples across the globe, especially the poor.

28. We support multilateral and plurilateral agendas to address issues in the global trading system itself and shared global challenges. We support G7 Trade Ministers’ efforts in this regard, and look forward to further work in the G20. Looking ahead to the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12) in November, we will work with other WTO members to make progress on immediate issues, including reaching a meaningful conclusion to the multilateral negotiation on fisheries subsidies and advancing negotiations on e-commerce. We also welcome the work undertaken towards the conclusion of the negotiations under the Joint Statement Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation by its participants. We support G7 Trade Ministers’ commitments to review our trade policy to ensure it supports women’s economic empowerment, and recognise the importance of developing a strong evidence base of gender-disaggregated data and analysis. We invite Trade Ministers to support the wider WTO membership to deliver an ambitious outcome at MC12 to bolster women’s participation in trade and economic empowerment. We endorse the conclusions of G7 Trade Ministers on promoting the transition to sustainable supply chains, and acknowledge the risk of carbon leakage, and will work collaboratively to address this risk and to align our trading practices with our commitments under the Paris agreement. We also welcome G7 Trade Ministers’ call to work in the WTO to formulate pragmatic, effective and holistic solutions to support trade in health, as well as their support for open, diversified, secure, and resilient supply chains in the manufacture of COVID-19 critical goods and vaccines and their components.

29. We are concerned by the use of all forms of forced labour in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labour of vulnerable groups and minorities, including in the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors. We agree on the importance of upholding human rights and of international labour standards, including those deriving from International Labour Organisation membership, throughout global supply chains and tackling instances of forced labour. We commit to continue to work together including through our own available domestic means and multilateral institutions to protect individuals from forced labour and to ensure that global supply chains are free from the use of forced labour. We therefore task G7 Trade Ministers to identify areas for strengthened cooperation and collective efforts towards eradicating the use of all forms of forced labour in global supply chains, ahead of the G7 Trade Ministers’ meeting in October 2021.

30. We will provide the sustained effort and momentum necessary to ensure progress is made in the modernisation of the WTO to promote fair competition and help secure shared prosperity for all. We will work together at the WTO and with the wider WTO membership ahead of MC12 to advance the following points:

modernisation of the global trade rulebook so that it both better reflects, with new rules, the transformations underway in the global economy, such as digitalisation and the green transition; and strengthens rules to protect against unfair practices, such as forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, lowering of labour and environmental standards to gain competitive advantage, market-distorting actions of state owned enterprises, and harmful industrial subsidies, including those that lead to excess capacity;
stronger adherence to the existing and modernised rulebook, including through greater respect for and compliance with transparency obligations, and a strengthened WTO monitoring and deliberating function;
a fairer approach to countries’ different responsibilities under the rulebook, including through addressing the arrangements for special and differential treatment so they reflect developments in the global economy but continue to account for the special needs of the least developed and low-income developing countries;
proper functioning of the WTO’s negotiating function and dispute settlement system, requiring addressing long-standing issues; and,
support for the interests of the least developed and low-income developing countries, including in the full implementation of WTO rules to integrate into the world trading system, so that any modernisation of the global trading system supports the social and economic growth and development of these countries.
FUTURE FRONTIERS

31. Future frontiers of the global economy and society – from cyber space to outer space – will determine the future prosperity and wellbeing of people all over the world in the decades ahead. As we are witnessing an increasing divergence of models, this transformation raises important questions about the interaction between economic opportunity, security, ethics, and human rights, and the balance between the role of the state, businesses and individuals.

32. We will work together as part of an ongoing agenda towards a trusted, values-driven digital ecosystem for the common good that enhances prosperity in a way that is sustainable, inclusive, transparent and human-centric. In doing so we will make it a sustained strategic priority to update our regulatory frameworks and work together with other relevant stakeholders, including young people, to ensure digital ecosystems evolve in a way that reflects our shared values. We commit to preserve an open, interoperable, reliable and secure internet, one that is unfragmented, supports freedom, innovation and trust which empowers people. If used properly, technologies can help us strengthen health capacities, tackle environmental threats, widen access to education and open new economic opportunities. We will leverage these technologies to advance tech for the common good and promote digital literacy worldwide. We will strengthen coordination on and support for the implementation and development of global norms and standards to ensure that the use and evolution of new technologies reflects our shared democratic values and commitment to open and competitive markets, strong safeguards including for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We also affirm our opposition to measures which may undermine these democratic values, such as government-imposed internet shutdowns and network restrictions. We support the development of harmonised principles of data collection which encourage public and private organisations to act to address bias in their own systems, noting new forms of decision-making have surfaced examples where algorithms have entrenched or amplified historic biases, or even created new forms of bias or unfairness.

33. We call on the private sector to join us in our efforts and reaffirm our support for industry-led inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to standard setting, in line with our values and principles which underpin these standards. As such, we welcome the Presidency’s initiative of a ‘Future Tech Forum’ in September 2021 with the support of the OECD. The Forum will convene like-minded democratic partners to discuss the role of technology in supporting open societies and tackling global challenges. The Forum will support efforts to mitigate the risk of regulatory fragmentation and to facilitate coherency of our emerging technology ecosystems, and it will invite proposals for Leaders to consider in appropriate global fora. We support the aim to facilitate dialogue between governments, industry, academia, civil society and other key stakeholders. As such we will continue to take bold action to build more transparency in our technologies, building on the Open Government Partnership. Building on the work of the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) advanced by the Canadian and French G7 Presidencies in 2018 and 2019, we will aim to rally all partners around our open and human centric approach to artificial intelligence looking forward to the GPAI Summit in Paris in November 2021. To support effective standard-setting that reflects our core values and principles, we will strengthen our coordination, including by consulting with industry, with regards to engagement with and appointments to Standard Developing Organisations, where appropriate. We commit to better sharing of information and best practice, including between our national standards bodies, enhanced capacity building and support for multi-stakeholder participation in standard-setting. To this end, we endorse the Framework for G7 Collaboration on Digital Technical Standards.

34. We will support cooperation on specific areas in relation to the evolution of future frontiers. Based on the work of our Digital and Technology Ministers, we agree the focus of our cooperation for this year will be a structured dialogue around specific areas:

Championing data free flow with trust, to better leverage the potential of valuable data-driven technologies while continuing to address challenges related to data protection. To that end we endorse our Digital Ministers’ Roadmap for Cooperation on Data Free Flow with Trust.
Enabling businesses to use electronic transferable records in order to generate efficiencies and economic savings to support the global economic recovery. In support of this aim we endorse the Framework for G7 Collaboration on Electronic Transferable Records.
Taking further steps to improve internet safety and counter hate speech, while protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, including free expression. We will protect our citizens online and offline, including children and vulnerable at-risk groups, and especially women and girls. We therefore endorse our Digital Ministers’ Internet Safety Principles which aim to set out common approaches to improving online safety. We invite Interior Ministers to work on a G7 agreement on sharing of information and best practice on tackling existing and emerging online forms of gender-based violence, including forms of online abuse. We affirm our support of the Christchurch Call, emphasising the need for respecting freedoms of speech and peoples’ reasonable expectation of privacy and further invite G7 Interior Ministers to continue work on preventing and countering Violent Extremist and Terrorist Use of the Internet begun in Ischia in 2017 and continued in Toronto in 2018 and Paris in 2019. We commit to work together to further a common understanding of how existing international law applies to cyberspace and welcome the work of our Foreign Ministers to promote this approach at the UN and other international fora. We also commit to work together to urgently address the escalating shared threat from criminal ransomware networks. We call on all states to urgently identify and disrupt ransomware criminal networks operating from within their borders, and hold those networks accountable for their actions.
Securing supply chains. Recognising the foundational role that telecommunications infrastructure, including 5G and future communication technologies, plays and will play in underpinning our wider digital and ICT infrastructure we will promote secure, resilient, competitive, transparent and sustainable and diverse digital, telecoms, and ICT infrastructure supply chains.
Deepening cooperation on Digital Competition in order to drive innovation across the global economy, enhancing consumer choice. We recognise that there is increasing international consensus that participants with significant market power can exploit their power to hold back digital markets and the wider economy. Therefore, building on the 2019 French G7 Presidency’s common understanding on ‘Competition and the Digital Economy’, we will work together through existing international and multilateral fora to find a coherent way to encourage competition and support innovation in digital markets.
35. Beyond these priorities, we will review whether other areas of collaboration with respect to future frontiers are appropriate. We are committed to the safe and sustainable use of space to support humanity’s ambition now and in the future. We recognise the importance of developing common standards, best practices and guidelines related to sustainable space operations alongside the need for a collaborative approach for space traffic management and coordination. We call on all nations to work together, through groups like the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the International Organization for Standardization and the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, to preserve the space environment for future generations.

36. Underpinning all of these future frontiers, and wider challenges of the coming century, is the importance of scientific discovery and its deployment. We will therefore work together to promote stronger collaboration on research and development, and promote principles of research security and integrity and open science building off the historical levels of collaboration seen in the past year to internationally beneficial results. Central to this should be building a diverse and resilient science and research community, inclusive for all groups including women. Domestically we will seek to redress the imbalance in women’s and girls’ under-representation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) which acts as a barrier to access to these growing industries. We will explore how existing and potential new mechanisms and initiatives can support risk reduction, prevention and response to future systemic crises, natural disasters and pace of technological change. As such we endorse the G7 Compact on Research Collaboration and its commitment to: support policies, legal frameworks and programmes to promote research collaboration; promote sharing of research data; explore enhancements to research assessment and rewards for collaboration and knowledge sharing; and develop a common set of principles which will help protect research and innovation ecosystem across the G7 to open and reciprocal research collaboration.

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT

37. The unprecedented and interdependent crises of climate change and biodiversity loss pose an existential threat to people, prosperity, security, and nature. Through global action and concerted leadership, 2021 should be a turning point for our planet as we commit to a green transition that cuts emissions, increases adaptation action worldwide, halts and reverses biodiversity loss, and, through policy and technological transformation, creates new high quality jobs and increases prosperity and wellbeing. Ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15), the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP26) and the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD COP15), we commit to accelerating efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and keep the 1.5°C global warming threshold within reach, strengthening adaptation and resilience to protect people from the impacts of climate change, halting and reversing biodiversity loss, mobilising finance and leveraging innovation to reach these goals. We welcome and encourage business, civil society and regional commitments to global climate and biodiversity ambition through science based targets, including the Race to Resilience and Race to Zero campaigns. Together we welcome the active role and participation of vulnerable communities, underrepresented groups and will work towards achieving equality, including gender equality, in the climate and environment sector. We will continue our efforts to progress the Equal by 30 Campaign for gender equality in the energy sector.

38. As G7 members, we all reaffirm our commitment to the Paris Agreement and to strengthening and accelerating its implementation through robust national policies and measures and scaled up international cooperation. To this end we collectively commit to ambitious and accelerated efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest, recognising the importance of significant action this decade. In line with this goal, we have each committed to increased 2030 targets and, where not done already, commit to submit aligned Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as soon as possible ahead of COP26, which will cut our collective emissions by around half compared to 2010 or over half compared to 2005. We also commit to submit 2050 Long Term Strategies (LTSs) by COP26 and to regularly update these as needed in line with the Paris agreement to reflect the latest science, technological advances and market developments. Recognising the importance of adaptation in our own national planning, we also commit to submitting adaptation communications as soon as possible, and if feasible by COP26. In fulfilling these commitments we will continue to increase our efforts to keep a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach and chart a G7 pathway towards Net Zero economies. We call on all countries, in particular major emitting economies, to join us in these goals as part of a global effort, stepping up their commitments to reflect the highest possible ambition and transparency on implementation under the Paris Agreement. We also note the value of supporting international initiatives such as the OECD’s International Programme for Action on Climate Mechanism (IPAC).

39. To be credible, ambitions need to be supported by tangible actions in all sectors of our economies and societies. We will lead a technology-driven transition to Net Zero, supported by relevant policies, noting the clear roadmap provided by the International Energy Agency and prioritising the most urgent and polluting sectors and activities:

In our energy sectors, we will increase energy efficiency, accelerate renewable and other zero emissions energy deployment, reduce wasteful consumption, leverage innovation all whilst maintaining energy security. Domestically, we commit to achieve an overwhelmingly decarbonised power system in the 2030s and to actions to accelerate this. Internationally, we commit to aligning official international financing with the global achievement of net zero GHG emissions no later than 2050 and for deep emissions reductions in the 2020s. We will phase out new direct government support for international carbon-intensive fossil fuel energy as soon as possible, with limited exceptions consistent with an ambitious climate neutrality pathway, the Paris Agreement, 1.5°C goal and best available science. To be credible, ambitions need to be supported by tangible actions in all sectors of our economies and societies. We will lead a technology-driven transition to Net Zero, noting the clear roadmap provided by the International Energy Agency and prioritising the most urgent and polluting sectors and activities.
Recognising that coal power generation is the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions, and consistent with this overall approach and our strengthened NDCs, domestically we have committed to rapidly scale-up technologies and policies that further accelerate the transition away from unabated coal capacity, consistent with our 2030 NDCs and net zero commitments. This transition must go hand in hand with policies and support for a just transition for affected workers, and sectors so that no person, group or geographic region is left behind. To accelerate the international transition away from coal, recognising that continued global investment in unabated coal power generation is incompatible with keeping 1.5°C within reach we stress that international investments in unabated coal must stop now and we commit now to an end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, investment, and financial and trade promotion support. This transition must also be complemented by support to deliver this, including coordinating through the Energy Transition Council. We welcome the work by the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) and donors plan to commit up to $2 billion in the coming year to its Accelerating the Coal Transition and Integrating Renewable Energy programs. These concessional resources are expected to mobilize up to $10 billion in co-financing, including from the private sector, to support renewable energy deployment in developing and emerging economies. We call on other major economies to adopt such commitments and join us in phasing out the most polluting energy sources, and scaling up investment in the technology and infrastructure to facilitate the clean, green transition. More broadly, we reaffirm our existing commitment to eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and call on all countries to join us, recognising the substantial financial resource this could unlock globally to support the transition and the need to commit to a clear timeline.
In our transport sectors, we commit to sustainable, decarbonised mobility and to scaling up zero emission vehicle technologies, including buses, trains, shipping and aviation. We recognise that this will require dramatically increasing the pace of the global decarbonisation of the road transport sector throughout the 2020s, and beyond. This includes support for accelerating the roll out of necessary infrastructure, such as charging and fueling infrastructure and enhancing the offer of more sustainable transport modes, including public transport, shared mobility, cycling and walking. We commit to accelerate the transition away from new sales of diesel and petrol cars to promote the uptake of zero emission vehicles.
In our industrial and innovation sectors we will take action to decarbonise areas such as iron and steel, cement, chemicals, and petrochemicals, in order to reach net zero emissions across the whole economy. To this end, we will harness our collective strengths in science, technological innovation, policy design, financing, and regulation including through our launch of the G7 Industrial Decarbonisation Agenda to complement, support and amplify ambition of existing initiatives. This includes further action on public procurement, standards and industrial efforts to define and stimulate demand for green products and enhance energy and resource efficiency in industry. We will focus on accelerating progress on electrification and batteries, hydrogen, carbon capture, usage and storage, zero emission aviation and shipping, and for those countries that opt to use it, nuclear power. We therefore fully support launching Mission Innovation phase two and the Clean Energy Ministerial third phase.
In our homes and buildings, and also industry, we recognise the need for an urgent step change in the deployment of renewable heating and cooling and reduction in energy demand. This complements required shifts in building design, sustainable materials and retrofits. We therefore welcome the Super-Efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) initiative’s goal of doubling the efficiency of lighting, cooling, refrigeration and motor systems sold globally by 2030.
In our agricultural, forestry and other land use sectors, we commit to ensuring our policies encourage sustainable production, the protection, conservation, and regeneration of ecosystems, and the sequestration of carbon. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues at the COP26 Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Policy Dialogue and UN Food Systems Summit in September.
40. Achieving our collective ambitions of a global green and resilient recovery offers the greatest economic opportunity of our time to boost income, innovation, jobs, productivity and growth while also accelerating action to tackle the existential threat of climate change and environmental degradation. To close the gap between the funds needed and actual finance flows requires mobilising and aligning finance and investment at scale towards the technologies, infrastructure, ecosystems, businesses, jobs and economies that will underpin a net-zero emissions resilient future that leaves no one behind. This includes the deployment and alignment of all sources of finance: public and private, national and multilateral. We recognise the particular challenges of financing the transition to net zero economies poses for developing countries and stand by our bilateral and multilateral commitments to support these partners, in the context of meaningful and transparent decarbonisation efforts. We reaffirm the collective developed country goal to jointly mobilise $100 billion per year from public and private sources, through to 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. Towards this end, we commit to each increase and improve our overall international public climate finance contributions for this period and call on other developed countries to join and enhance their contributions to this effort. We welcome the commitments already made by some of the G7 to increase climate finance and look forward to new commitments from others well ahead of COP26 in Glasgow. This increase in quantity and predictability is complemented by improved effectiveness and accessibility, and includes more finance contributing to adaptation and resilience, disaster risk and insurance, as well as support for nature and nature-based solutions. We are committed to further enhance synergies between finance for climate and biodiversity and to promote funding that has co-benefits for climate and nature and are working intensively towards increasing the quantity of finance to nature and nature-based solutions. We welcome efforts of the MDBs to scale up their climate and nature finance, urge them to mobilise increased finance including from the private sector, and call on them, Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), multilateral funds, public banks and relevant agencies to publish before COP26 a high-level plan and date by which all their operations will be fully aligned with and support the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the multilateral environmental agreements we support.

41. We also support the transformation underway to mobilise further private capital towards these objectives in particular to support developing countries and emerging markets in making the most of the opportunities in the transition; whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change. We call upon the MDBs and our DFIs to prioritise capital mobilization strategies, initiatives and incentives within their operations. The G7 commits to leverage different types of blended finance vehicles including through our greater strategic approach to development finance, greater collaboration between our DFIs and billions worth of planned commitments towards CIF and Green Climate Fund, all of which will mobilise billions more in private finance. We also encourage further development of disaster risk finance markets. Towards this, G7 members have committed hundreds of millions worth of new financing for early action, disaster risk and insurance in line with the InsuResilience Global Partnership and Risk-Informed Early Action Partnership (REAP). We commit to establishing the necessary market infrastructure for private finance to support and incentivise the net zero transition. Developing the global green finance market will help mobilise private sector finance, and reinforce government policy to meet our net zero commitments. We support the recently launched Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero, and call on swift, robust delivery of their commitments to reduce real economy emissions. We emphasise the need to green the global financial system so that financial decisions take climate considerations into account. We support moving towards mandatory climate-related financial disclosures that provide consistent and decision-useful information for market participants and that are based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, in line with domestic regulatory frameworks. We also look forward to the establishment of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures and its recommendations. These initiatives will help mobilise the trillions of dollars of private sector finance needed, and reinforce government policy to meet our net zero commitments. We recognise the potential of high integrity carbon markets and carbon pricing to foster cost-efficient reductions in emission levels, drive innovation and enable a transformation to net zero, through the optimal use of a range of policy levers to price carbon. We underline their importance towards the establishment of a fair and efficient carbon pricing trajectory to accelerate the decarbonisation of our economies, to achieve a net zero global emissions pathway. In all this, we will develop gender-responsive approaches to climate and nature financing, investment and policies, so that women and girls can participate fully in the future green economy.

42. Biodiversity loss is an intrinsically linked, mutually reinforcing, and equally important existential threat to our planet and our people alongside climate change. In this context, we acknowledge as the G7 our contribution to the decline of biodiversity and pledge to play our part in its restoration and conservation. We support an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted by parties at CBD COP15 which sets ambitious goals, strengthens implementation, and enhances regular reporting and review. We acknowledge our responsibility to support the world in reversing the trajectory of the loss of biodiversity and the natural environments that support it, alongside ensuring that the impact on nature is fully taken into account in our policy decision making.

43. In support of strong outcomes for nature at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP-15 in Kunming and COP26 this year, and noting the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature launched at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly 2020, we adopt the G7 2030 Nature Compact in support of the global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The Nature Compact commits us to take action across four key pillars:

First, we commit to champion ambitious and effective global biodiversity targets, including conserving or protecting at least 30 per cent of global land and at least 30 per cent of the global ocean by 2030. We will contribute by conserving or protecting at least 30 per cent of our own land, including terrestrial and inland waters, and coastal and marine areas by 2030 according to national circumstances and approaches. These actions will help stem the extinction crisis, safeguard water and food supplies, absorb carbon pollution, and reduce the risks of future pandemics. We also fully support the commitment of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to develop a representative system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Convention area in the Southern Ocean based on the best available scientific evidence.
Second, we will support the transition to sustainable management and use of natural resources, and use appropriate levers to address unsustainable and illegal activities negatively impacting nature, and therefore livelihoods. This includes stepping up action to tackle increasing levels of plastic pollution in the ocean, including working through the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) on options including strengthening existing instruments and a potential new agreement or other instrument to address marine plastic litter, including at UNEA-5.2.
Third, we will work intensively towards increasing investment in the protection, conservation and restoration of nature, including committing to increase finance for nature based solutions through to 2025, maximising synergies of climate and biodiversity finance, and ensuring prominence of nature in both policy and economic decision-making.
Finally, we will prioritise strengthened accountability and implementation mechanisms of Multilateral Environmental Agreements to which we are parties. We will implement the Compact and review our progress against it regularly through existing G7 mechanisms, including at the G7 Leaders’ Summit in five years when we will review options to ratchet up our action and ambition, as needed, to ensure delivery of our 2030 vision. Those G7 members party to the CBD will also champion successful implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be agreed at COP15.
GENDER EQUALITY

44. Gender equality is at the heart of an open, inclusive, and just society. Persistent gaps in gender equality affect access to basic services as well as decent work, equal pay, social protection, education, technology and many other areas. Unequal division of unpaid care responsibilities in the home and low pay for paid care work also limits women’s empowerment, social and economic participation and leadership. Gender equality intersects with other characteristics and our actions need to take account of these intersections in a meaningful way, including tackling racism in all forms and violence and discrimination against LGBQTI+ populations. We recognise the devastating and disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on women and girls, which risks reversing hard-won gains especially with regards to gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive health and rights, education and jobs.

45. The advancement of gender equity and equality are a central pillar of our plans and policies to build back better, informed by three key priorities: educating girls, empowering women and ending violence against women and girls. Achieving gender equality needs to be underpinned by the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in all aspects of decision-making. We are committed to close alignment with the Generation Equality Forum (GEF) and commend the organisation of the first G20 Ministerial Conference on women’s empowerment. We thank the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) for its work and recommendations, and look forward to receiving the GEAC’s full report in the Autumn. We agree to a consistent and sustained focus on gender equality to project our global leadership on this issue, and intend to convene the GEAC as a standing feature of all G7 Presidencies. We know that we cannot make true progress towards gender equality without robust data and a way to track it over time. We invite the GEAC to work with existing accountability mechanisms such as the Accountability Working Group and the Taormina Roadmap to monitor G7 commitments to achieve gender equality on an annual basis.

46. We reaffirm our full commitment to promote and protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of all individuals, and recognise the essential and transformative role they play in gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment, and in supporting diversity, including of sexual orientations and gender identities. We commit to working together to prevent and address the negative impacts on access to SRHR from the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific attention to the most at risk, marginalised and inadequately served groups. In recognition of increased violence against women and girls during the COVID-19 crisis, we commit to preventing, responding to and eliminating all forms of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV). We will achieve this through women’s empowerment and by scaling-up implementation of evidence-based, accessible survivor and victim-centred policies, prevention and support programmes, including through our pandemic response and recovery at home, in partner countries and in conflict zones. We acknowledge our collective responsibility to beneficiaries and partners, their communities, and survivors to do more to address sexual exploitation and abuse in international aid. We condemn GBV against women and girls and denounce the use of sexual violence in conflict situations and underscore that such acts may constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes. We note the varied legal and institutional frameworks which currently address conflict and invite Foreign and Development Ministers to consider how best to strengthen international architecture around conflict-related sexual violence.

47. COVID-19 has exacerbated underlying inequalities, leading to one of the worst education crises in history for children around the world, but especially for the most marginalised and at risk girls. Around 11 million girls from pre-primary to secondary school are at risk of not returning to school. We commit to two new global SDG4 milestone girls’ education targets: 40 million more girls in education by 2026 in low and lower-middle income countries; and 20 million more girls reading by age 10 or the end of primary school by 2026, in low and lower-middle income countries. We endorse the G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Girls Education Declaration. These targets should be underpinned by sustainable financing and so today G7 members commit to a combined total pledge of at least $2¾ billion funding over the next 5 years for the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) ahead of its replenishment in July. We call on others to join with the G7 and make ambitious pledges to a fully funded GPE.

GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERNATIONAL ACTION

48. We will work together to promote our shared values as open societies in the international system, as reflected in the Statement on Open Societies signed with the Leaders of countries from the Indo-Pacific region and Africa, who have joined us at Carbis Bay, namely, Australia, India, South Africa and the Republic of Korea. Further to this, we commit to: increase cooperation on supporting democracy, including through strengthening the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism to counter foreign threats to democracy including disinformation; strengthen media freedom and ensure the protection of journalists; support freedom of religion or belief; condemn racism in all its forms; address human rights abuses, including the failure to protect civilians in conflict; oppose the practice of arbitrary detention, including by amplifying the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations and welcoming its Partnership Action Plan; and recognise the need for action on corruption, including by sharing information on illicit financial activities, tackling the misuse of shell companies, and curtailing the ability of illicit actors to hide wealth, including in real estate. We support the growth of peaceful, just and inclusive societies by ensuring safe and vibrant civic spaces. For our own part, our discussions have benefited from input from the perspectives and expertise of external engagement groups representing all sectors of society, including the Business 7, Civil Society 7, Labour 7, Science 7, Women 7 and Youth 7. We thank them for their consideration and recommendations across the breadth of our policy priorities.

49. We recognise the particular responsibility of the largest countries and economies in upholding the rules-based international system and international law. We commit to play our role in this, working with all partners and as members of the G20, UN and wider international community, and encourage others to do the same. We will do this based on our shared agenda and democratic values. With regard to China, and competition in the global economy, we will continue to consult on collective approaches to challenging non-market policies and practices which undermine the fair and transparent operation of the global economy. In the context of our respective responsibilities in the multilateral system, we will cooperate where it is in our mutual interest on shared global challenges, in particular addressing climate change and biodiversity loss in the context of COP26 and other multilateral discussions. At the same time and in so doing, we will promote our values, including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

50. We endorse the statement made by our Foreign and Development Ministers in May. Building on this, in particular to reflect recent developments, we have reviewed the following live issues.

51. We reiterate our interest in stable and predictable relations with Russia, and will continue to engage where there are areas of mutual interest. We reaffirm our call on Russia to stop its destabilising behaviour and malign activities, including its interference in other countries’ democratic systems, and to fulfil its international human rights obligations and commitments. In particular, we call on Russia to urgently investigate and credibly explain the use of a chemical weapon on its soil, to end its systematic crackdown on independent civil society and media, and to identify, disrupt, and hold to account those within its borders who conduct ransomware attacks, abuse virtual currency to launder ransoms, and other cybercrimes.

52. We reiterate our support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. We call on Russia to alleviate tensions and act in accordance with its international obligations, and to withdraw the Russian military troops and materiel at the eastern border of Ukraine and on the Crimean peninsula. We remain firmly of the view that Russia is a party to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, not a mediator. We affirm our support for the Normandy Process to secure the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and call on Russia and the armed formations it backs to engage constructively and recommit to the ceasefire. We reaffirm our efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s democracy and institutions, encouraging further progress on reform.

53. We are deeply concerned by the Belarusian authorities’ continuing attacks on human rights, fundamental freedoms and international law, as exemplified by the forced landing of flight FR4978 and the arrest of an independent journalist and his partner. We will work together to hold those responsible to account, including through imposing sanctions, and to continue to support civil society, independent media and human rights in Belarus. We call on the regime to: change course and implement all the recommendations of the independent expert mission under the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Moscow Mechanism; enter into meaningful dialogue with all sectors of society; and hold new free and fair elections.

54. We are deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region and reports of an unfolding major humanitarian tragedy, including potentially hundreds of thousands in famine conditions. We condemn ongoing atrocities, including widespread sexual violence, and we welcome the ongoing Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) investigations and call for full accountability for reported human rights violations in Tigray and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. We call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, unimpeded humanitarian access to all areas and the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean forces. We urge all parties to pursue a credible political process, which is the only solution to the crisis. We further call upon Ethiopia’s leaders to advance a broader inclusive political process to foster national reconciliation and consensus toward a future based on respect for the human and political rights of all Ethiopians.

55. While acknowledging the increased international mobilisation and the progress in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel, we express our concern about the continuing attacks targeting civilian populations, and the deepening humanitarian crisis. We urge all actors to respect human rights and international humanitarian law. We will deliver on our commitments to renew efforts to address drivers of instability, with a focus on political and civilian dimensions of the “civil surge” agreed upon by the governments of the G5 Sahel and their partners, gathered in the Sahel coalition, at the N’Djamena summit in February 2021. We support the efforts of the African Union and Economic Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in response to recent events in Chad and Mali. We reiterate the necessity to create the conditions for timely civilian-led transitions to democratic, constitutional rule in both countries.

56. We confirm our full support for the interim executive authority as it pursues Libyan-led and Libyan-owned stabilisation, facilitated by the UN in the framework of the Berlin Process. We reaffirm the importance of free, fair and inclusive elections to be held on 24 December. We reiterate the urgent need to implement in full the 23 October ceasefire agreement, including through the withdrawal of all foreign fighters and mercenaries from Libya. All states must comply with UN Security Council Resolutions 2570 and 2571.

57. We call on all Afghan parties to reduce violence and agree on steps that enable the successful implementation of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire and to engage fully with the peace process. In Afghanistan, a sustainable, inclusive political settlement is the only way to achieve a just and durable peace that benefits all Afghans. We are determined to maintain our support for the Afghan government to address the country’s urgent security and humanitarian needs, and to help the people of Afghanistan, including women, young people and minority groups, as they seek to preserve hard-won rights and freedoms.

58. We call for the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and the verifiable and irreversible abandonment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We call on all states to fully implement these resolutions and their associated sanctions. We welcome the readiness of the United States to continue its diplomatic efforts in coordination with all relevant partners and call on the DPRK to engage and resume dialogue. We once again call on DPRK to respect human rights for all and to resolve the issue of abductions immediately.

59. We condemn in the strongest terms the military coup in Myanmar, and the violence committed by Myanmar’s security forces, and we call for the immediate release of those detained arbitrarily. We pledge our support to those advocating peacefully for a stable and inclusive democracy. Recalling ASEAN’s central role, we welcome its Five Point Consensus and urge swift implementation. We reiterate our commitment to ensuring that neither development assistance nor the sale of arms will benefit the military, and urge businesses to exercise due diligence in their trade and investment in the same vein. We reaffirm G7 unity on pursuing additional measures should they prove necessary. We are also deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation, call for unfettered humanitarian access to vulnerable and displaced populations, support the Humanitarian Response Plan, and encourage others to contribute.

60. We reiterate the importance of maintaining a free and open Indo Pacific, which is inclusive and based on the rule of law. We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo and increase tensions.

61. We are committed to ensuring that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon. We welcome the substantive discussions between Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) participants, and separately with the United States, to accomplish a return of the United States and Iran to their JCPoA commitments. We support the goal of restoring the nonproliferation benefits of the JCPoA and of ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. We urge Iran to stop and reverse all measures that reduce transparency and to ensure full and timely cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. A restored and fully-implemented JCPoA could also pave the way to further address regional and security concerns. We condemn Iran’s support to proxy forces and non-state armed actors, including through financing, training and the proliferation of missile technology and weapons. We call on Iran to stop all ballistic missile activities and proliferation inconsistent with UNSCR 2231 and other relevant resolutions, refrain from destabilising actions and play a constructive role in fostering regional stability and peace. We support efforts to pursue transparency, accountability and justice for the victims of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, shot down by Iran in January 2020. We reiterate our deep concern over the continued human rights violations and abuses in Iran.

62. We commend the Iraqi Security Forces, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, and Government of Iraq in their success against ISIS and affirm continuing support for those efforts, including stabilisation in liberated areas. We also affirm our support for Iraq’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. We fully endorse UNSCR 2576 and its call for election monitors to help ensure free and fair elections in October, and encourage all Iraqis to participate in those elections. Finally, we welcome the efforts of the Government of Iraq to hold illegal armed groups accountable for attacks against Iraqi citizens and Coalition personnel who are in Iraq at its invitation solely to train and advise Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS.

63. We acknowledge the far-reaching impacts of COVID-19 on the poorest countries who already were grappling with the effects of conflict, climate change, socio-economic shocks and a chronic lack of resources and infrastructure. As we advance recovery plans to support our economies and build back better, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including through innovative measures and massive budgetary support, developing partner countries, especially in Africa, cannot be left behind. We are deeply concerned that the pandemic has set back progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and continues to exacerbate global inequalities, and therefore recommit to enhance our efforts to achieve the SDGs by 2030, including by supporting the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) and aligning financial flows with the SDGs. We take note of the policy options developed through the Financing for Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond Initiative.

64. The IMF estimates that, between now and 2025, low income countries will need around $200 billion to respond to the pandemic and $250 billion in investment spending for convergence with advanced economies. We reiterate our commitment to implement the G20 and Paris Club Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the Debt Service Suspension Initiative. We support fair and open lending practices, and call on all creditors to adhere to these. We underline the importance of information sharing, and reiterate the need for comparability of treatment for private and other official bilateral creditors in debt treatments. We urge the MDBs to explore all options to unlock additional financing for developing countries, including more efficient and effective use of their resources, further work on balance sheet optimisation and further analysis of their capital adequacy frameworks.

65. We welcome the agreement by G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to support a new $650 billion allocation of IMF Special Drawing Rights, urging implementation by the end of August 2021 accompanied by transparency and accountability measures. We encourage the IMF to work quickly with all relevant stakeholders to explore a menu of options for channelling SDRs to further support health needs, including vaccinations, and to help enable greener, more robust recoveries in the most affected countries, supporting the poorest and most vulnerable countries in tackling these urgent challenges. G7 countries are actively considering options that we can take as part of a global effort to magnify the impact of this general allocation for countries most in need, especially in Africa, including through voluntarily channelling SDRs and/or budget loans, in line with national circumstances and legal requirements. This includes scaling up financing to the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and the IMF’s review of concessional financing and policies to strengthen its capacity to support low income countries. To support our aim to reach a total global ambition of $100 billion, we call for contributions from other countries able to do so, alongside the G7. We task G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to urgently consider the detail of this, including by working with the G20 and other stakeholders.

66. We note with grave concern that the world faces an unprecedented humanitarian crisis as the UN reports that over 34 million people are already facing emergency levels of food insecurity and are one step from catastrophe or famine. In this light, we endorse the G7 Famine Prevention and Humanitarian Crises Compact committed to by G7 Foreign and Development Ministers. We reaffirm our commitment to provide $7 billion in humanitarian assistance, take diplomatic action to promote humanitarian access and the protection of civilians, including women and girls, and strengthen anticipatory and early action in partnership with the UN and World Bank Group. We call attention to the rise in poverty, hunger and malnutrition globally, noting the exacerbating role of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, economic shocks, biodiversity loss and increased conflict, and agree further action is needed to reverse these trends and strengthen global food systems. We reaffirm our commitment to the Broad Food Security and Nutrition Development Approach made at Elmau in 2015, and note that responsible investments in food security, food systems, and nutrition are essential to support SDG2 and World Health Assembly nutrition targets. We further encourage strong commitments in these areas to be announced at the G20, the UN Food Systems Summit, COP26 and the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth Summit later this year.

67. We recognise the significant infrastructure needs across low and middle income countries, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Reflecting our shared values and shared vision, we will aim for a step change in our approach to infrastructure financing, notably on quality infrastructure and investment, to strengthen partnerships with developing countries and help meet their infrastructure needs. Working together and with others, and by building on and going beyond our existing action, we will develop a partnership to build back better for the world with the aim of maximising impact on the ground to meet the needs of our partners, and to ensure our collective effort is greater than the sum of its parts. This partnership will orient development finance tools toward the range of challenges faced by developing countries, including in resilient infrastructure and technologies to address the impacts of climate change; health systems and security; developing digital solutions; and advancing gender equality and education. A particular priority will be an initiative for clean and green growth to drive a sustainable and green transition in line with the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030. Underpinning our approach will be the following key principles:

values-driven vision: we believe that infrastructure development, implementation and maintenance – carried out in a transparent and financially, environmentally, and socially sustainable manner – will lead to beneficial outcomes for recipient countries and communities.
intensive collaboration: we will each pursue the necessary actions through our own DFIs, and other relevant bodies, while strengthening collaboration to determine how we can increase the scale and scope of our collective offer to developing partner countries.
market-led: we believe current funding and financing approaches are not adequate to address the infrastructure financing gap and are committed to enhancing the development finance tools at our disposal, including by mobilising private sector capital and expertise, through a strengthened and more integrated approach across the public and private sector, to reduce risk, strengthen local capacities, and support and catalyse a significant increase in responsible and market-based private capital in sectors with anticipated returns, and to strengthen local capacities, in a sustainable manner, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development.
strong standards: to ensure our approach and values are upheld, and to drive a race to the top, we will make high standards – across environmental, social, financial, labour, governance and transparency – a central plank of our approach, including by building on multilateral agreed standards on quality infrastructure such as the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment. This will help to provide citizens of recipient communities with the long-run benefits they expect and deserve. We emphasise the importance of transparent, open, economically efficient, fair and competitive standards for lending and procurement, also in line with debt sustainability, and the adherence of international rules and standards for major creditor countries.
enhanced multilateral finance: we recognise that many MDBs and other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have evolved to embody the highest standards for project planning, implementation, social and environmental safeguards, and analytical capability. We will work with the IFIs to enhance their catalytic impact and increase the mobilisation of capital needed for impactful and sustainable infrastructure investment, and ensure that the pace of project development and disbursement meets the needs of partner countries.
strategic partnerships: we will ground this initiative in strategic and substantial partnerships between countries, to support innovation and technological development, focused on the most pressing needs.
We will work together to take forward an agenda based on these principles and work closely with others, including developing country partners, to ensure that it is developed in an open and collaborative way. We will establish a taskforce to develop practical proposals and report back to us in the Autumn.

68. A central focus of our new strategic approach will be supporting sustainable growth in Africa. Building on the conclusions of the Summit on Financing African Economies that was held in Paris on 18 May 2021 and on the needs expressed by our African partners, we are resolved to deepen our current partnership to a new deal with the African continent, with African states, institutions and expertise at its core. In line with these ambitions, our DFIs and multilateral partners intend to invest at least $80 billion into the private sector in Africa over the next five years to support sustainable economic recovery and growth in line with the AAAA. This builds on the 2X Challenge partnership between G7 DFIs launched in 2018 and the target of an additional $15 billion of new funding for this as announced by G7 Foreign and Development Ministers in May 2021 to help address the disproportionate barriers that women face to access capital, leadership roles, quality employment and affordable care. We welcome the Alliance for entrepreneurship in Africa that was launched on May 18 and look forward to its first meeting by the end of the year, under the auspices of the International Financing Corporation and in full partnership with all public and private partners willing to invest more in Africa’s future and to leverage its growth opportunities. We ask the MDBs and especially the World Bank to mobilise more private financing into Africa by developing and reinforcing the relevant risk sharing instruments for the benefit of African small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We reiterate our support to the G20 Compact with Africa as a key framework to enhance the business environment in Africa and call on reform orientated partners to join and strengthen this initiative. We invite G7 Foreign and Development ministers to continue to work with developing country partners and DFIs at the second Foreign and Development Ministers meeting.

69. As open societies we are committed to accountability and transparency, and to upholding the promises we have made. In this spirit, we endorse the 2021 Carbis Bay Progress Report from the G7 Accountability Working Group, reporting on G7 commitments to strengthen health systems to advance universal health coverage and global health. We look forward to the next Comprehensive Progress Report from the G7 Accountability working group in 2022.

CONCLUSION
70. In Cornwall we have revitalised our G7 partnership. Our Shared Agenda for Global Action is a statement of our shared vision and ambition as we continue to collaborate this year and under future Presidencies. As we do so we look forward to joining with others to ensure we build back better, in particular at the G20 Summit, COP26, and CBD15 and the UN General Assembly, and reiterate our support for the holding of the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020 in a safe and secure manner as a symbol of global unity in overcoming COVID-19.

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and seeking to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis with full respect for the fundamental role of the United Nations, are fully determined to provide their strongest support to end the Syrian conflict and establish conditions for a successful Syrian-led political transition process, facilitated by the UN, in order to fully implement the Munich Statement of the ISSG on February 11th, 2016, UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the 2015 Vienna Statements and the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

In this regard, and in furtherance of the February 11th decisions of the ISSG, the United States and Russia, as co-chairs of the ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, announce the adoption on February 22, 2016, of the Terms for a Cessation of Hostilities in Syria attached as an Annex to this statement, and propose that the cessation of hostilities commence at 00:00 (Damascus time) on February 27, 2016. The cessation of hostilities is to be applied to those parties to the Syrian conflict that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of its terms. Consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the statements of the ISSG, the cessation of hostilities does not apply to “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.

Any party engaged in military or para-military hostilities in Syria, other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council will indicate to the Russian Federation or the United States, as co-chairs of the ISSG, their commitment to and acceptance of the terms for the cessation of hostilities by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016. In order to implement the cessation of hostilities in a manner that promotes stability and protects those parties participating in it, the Russian Federation and the United States are prepared to work together to exchange pertinent information (e.g., aggregated data that delineates territory where groups that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of the cessation of hostilities are active, and a focal point for each side, in order to ensure effective communication) and develop procedures necessary for preventing parties participating in the cessation of hostilities from being attacked by Russian Armed Forces, the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian government and other forces supporting them, and other parties to the cessation of hostilities. Military actions, including airstrikes, of the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Armed Forces, and the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition will continue against ISIL, “Jabhat al-Nusra,” and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council. The Russian Federation and United States will also work together, and with other members of the Ceasefire Task Force, as appropriate and pursuant to the ISSG decision of February 11, 2016, to delineate the territory held by “Daesh,” “Jabhat al-Nusra” and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council, which are excluded from the cessation of hostilities.

In order to promote the effective implementation of the cessation of hostilities, the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, co-chaired by the United States and Russia, has been established under UN auspices, including political and military officials from the co-chairs and other Task Force members; the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Syria (OSE) serves as secretariat. The primary functions of the Task Force are, as provided in the ISSG Statement of February 11, to: a) delineate the territory held by “Daesh”, “Jabhat-al-Nusra” and other terrorist organizations designated by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behavior by any of the parties to the ISSG Ministers or those designated by the Ministers to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements of the cessation of hostilities, and the protection it affords them.

The United States and Russia are prepared, in their capacities as co-chairs of the Ceasefire Task Force and in coordination with other members of the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force as appropriate, to develop effective mechanisms to promote and monitor compliance with the ceasefire both by the governmental forces of the Syrian Arab Republic and other forces supporting them, and the armed opposition groups. To achieve this goal and to promote an effective and sustainable cessation of hostilities, the Russian Federation and the United States will establish a communication hotline and, if necessary and appropriate, a working group to exchange relevant information after the cessation of hostilities has gone into effect. In addressing incidents of non-compliance, every effort should be made to promote communications among all parties to restore compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions, and non-forcible means should be exhausted whenever possible before resorting to use of force. The United States and Russia as co-chairs of ISSG Ceasefire Task Force will develop such further modalities and standard operating procedures as may be necessary to implement these functions.

The United States and the Russian Federation together call upon all Syrian parties, regional states and others in the international community to support the immediate cessation of violence and bloodshed in Syria and to contribute to the swift, effective and successful promotion of the UN-facilitated political transition process in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254, the February 11 Statement of the ISSG, the 2015 Vienna statements of the ISSG, and the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

ANNEX

TERMS FOR CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN SYRIA

The nationwide cessation of hostilities is to apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.

The responsibilities of the Syrian armed opposition are set out in paragraph 1 below. The responsibilities of the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or associated with the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic are set out in paragraph 2 below.

1. To take part in the cessation of hostilities, armed opposition groups will confirm – to the United States of America or the Russian Federation, who will attest such confirmations to one another as co-chairs of the ISSG by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26 2016 – their commitment to and acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously on December 18, 2015, ‑ including the readiness to participate in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including rockets, mortars, and anti-tank guided missiles, against Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and any associated forces;

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained access throughout areas under their operational control and allow immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.
2. The above-mentioned commitments will be observed by such armed opposition groups, provided that the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or associated with the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic have confirmed to the Russian Federation as co-chair of the ISSG by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016 their commitment to and acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously on December 18, 2015, including the readiness to participate in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including aerial bombardments by the Air Force of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation, against the armed opposition groups (as confirmed to the United States or the Russian Federation by parties to the cessation of hostilities);

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, unhindered and sustained access throughout areas under their operational control and allow immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.
The Russian Federation and the United States, as co-chairs of the ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, are prepared to work together to ensure effective communications and develop procedures necessary for preventing parties participating in the cessation of hostilities from being attacked by Russian Armed Forces, the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian government and other forces supporting them, and other parties to the cessation of hostilities.

All parties further commit to work for the early release of detainees, particularly women and children.

Any party can bring a violation or potential violation of the cessation of hostilities to the attention of the Task Force, either through the OSE or the co-chairs. The OSE and Co-Chairs will establish liaison arrangements with each other and the parties, and inform the public generally about how any party may bring a violation to the attention of the Task Force.

The United States and the Russian Federation as co-chairs confirm that the cessation of hostilities will be monitored in an impartial and transparent manner and with broad media coverage.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is ordering GE Capital Retail Bank (GE Capital), now known as Synchrony Bank, to provide an estimated $225 million in relief to consumers harmed by illegal and discriminatory credit card practices. GE Capital must refund $56 million to approximately 638,000 consumers who were subjected to deceptive marketing practices. As part of the joint enforcement action by the CFPB and Department of Justice, GE Capital must also provide an additional $169 million to about 108,000 borrowers excluded from debt relief offers because of their national origin. This order represents the federal government’s largest credit card discrimination settlement in history.

“Today’s action will provide $225 million in relief to GE Capital credit card customers who were harmed by deceptive marketing or discrimination,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We will continue to take action against marketing tactics that trick consumers into buying credit card products they do not want or cannot use. Consumers also deserve to be treated fairly no matter where they live or what language they speak.”

“The blatant discrimination that occurred here is unlawful and will not be tolerated. Borrowers have the right to credit card terms that do not differ based on their national origin, and the settlement today sends the message that the Justice Department can and will vigorously enforce the law against lenders who violate that right,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

GE Capital changed its name to Synchrony Bank on June 2, 2014. GE Capital is a federal savings bank headquartered in Draper, Utah with assets totaling more than $39 billion. GE provides store-branded credit cards that are sold to consumers by merchants and retailers across the country. Today’s enforcement action related to credit card add-on products stems from a CFPB examination which was conducted between December 2012 and February 2013. The action related to the discriminatory credit card practices resulted from GE Capital’s self-reporting of the issue to the CFPB, which led to a joint investigation between the CFPB and the Department of Justice.

Deceptive Marketing
Bureau examiners identified several deceptive marketing practices used by GE Capital to promote its credit card add-on products. GE Capital offered five different debt cancellation add-on products: “Card Security,” “Account Security,” “Account Security Plus,” “Debt Security,” and “Debt Security Plus.” GE promoted these products as providing debt cancellation of a certain percent of the consumer’s balance in the event of certain hardships like involuntary unemployment or disability. The Bureau found that GE Capital’s telemarketers misrepresented these products to consumers in four main ways:

Marketed the product as free of charge: Telemarketers led consumers to believe they would not have to pay for these products as long as they paid off the balance on their billing statement. In fact, consumers could only avoid the fee in very specific circumstances, such as if the account was not in use or if the customer had paid off the balance prior to GE Capital issuing its monthly billing statement.

Failed to disclose consumers’ ineligibility: In calls with telemarketers, many consumers mentioned that they were retired or disabled, which would mean that they were not eligible for key benefits of the products. Even after hearing this, the telemarketers neglected to tell the consumers that they would not be eligible for key debt cancellation benefits, and the consumers bought the products without this important information.

Failed to disclose that consumers were making a purchase: In many cases, the telemarketers did not make it clear that consumers were purchasing a product. Rather, they made it seem like the consumers were receiving a benefit, updating their accounts, or that the telemarketers were handling other administrative tasks. In these conversations, it was not obvious to consumers that they were buying something and would be charged a fee.

Marketed products as a limited time offer: Many customer service representatives falsely told consumers that these debt cancellation products were a “limited time offer.” In reality, nothing about the availability of these products was limited. However, leading consumers to believe they had a short timeframe to sign up may have created a false sense of pressure and pushed them to enroll in the products.

Discriminatory Credit Practices
GE Capital had two different promotions that allowed credit card customers with delinquent accounts to settle their balances by paying off a specific portion of their debt.

Statement Credit Offer: Customers with balances greater than $700, a credit score below 670, and whose minimum payment due was more than $150 were offered a credit of between $25 to $100 if they paid off their minimum amount due. This promotion ran from March 2010 to March 2012.

Settlement Offer: Customers with balances greater than $200, a credit score within certain thresholds, four or more payments overdue, and no payments in the past 90 days received offers to waive their remaining account balance if they paid between 25 percent and 55 percent of what was owed. This promotion ran from January 2009 to March 2012.

GE Capital did not extend these offers to any customer who indicated that they preferred to communicate in Spanish or had a mailing address in Puerto Rico, even if the customer met the promotion’s qualifications. This meant that Hispanic populations were unfairly denied the opportunity to benefit from these promotions. Such discrimination is in direct violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The ECOA prohibits creditors from discriminating in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of characteristics such as race and national origin. In this case, the customers did not receive either offer in any language, including English, and did not know they were being discriminated against.

Enforcement Action
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. The ECOA authorizes the CFPB and the DOJ to take action against creditors engaging in illegal discrimination. The CFPB is issuing a consent order as an administrative action covering both the deceptive marketing practices and the illegal discrimination. The DOJ’s settlement on discrimination was filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Utah. The CFPB’s order requires GE Capital:

End deceptive marketing practices:GE Capital must cease its deceptive marketing practices. GE Capital ended all telephone-based enrollments for all of the add-on products involved in today’s action in October 2012. GE Capital is prohibited from marketing or offering these products by telephone until it submits a compliance plan to the Bureau.

End illegal discrimination: GE Capital must end all discriminatory credit practices. GE Capital has included qualified customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish and customers with a mailing address in Puerto Rico in the settlement offer since March 2012. GE Capital completely discontinued the statement credit offer in March 2012.
Provide $225 million to harmed consumers: GE Capital must refund $56 million to the approximately 638,000 consumers who were affected by its deceptive marketing of the credit card add-on products. GE Capital must also provide $169 million in relief to about 108,000 borrowers excluded from debt relief offers because of their national origin. The $169 million represents the value of the offer that the consumer did not receive plus interest and indirect damages.

Conveniently provide consumer relief: Consumers do not need to take action to obtain their relief. If the consumers still have credit cards with GE Capital, they have received or will receive a credit to their accounts or a check. If they no longer have credit cards with GE Capital, they will receive or have received a check in the mail or have charged-off balances reduced by the amount of the relief. If the relief is greater than the consumer’s existing balance, the consumer will receive a check for the excess.

Notify credit reporting agencies of new information: For those consumers who did not receive the debt relief offers, GE Capital will work with credit reporting agencies to ensure that any negative information associated with the consumer’s GE Capital accounts as a result of these violations will be deleted from their credit history.

Forgive debt of accounts that did not receive debt relief offers: For the customers that did not receive debt relief offers because they preferred to communicate in Spanish or had a mailing address in Puerto Rico, if GE Capital had written off or sold their debt, that debt will be forgiven.

Pay a $3.5 million penalty: For its deceptive credit card marketing, GE Capital will make a $3.5 million penalty payment to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. With respect to the illegal discrimination, the Bureau is not assessing penalties based on a number of factors, including that the company self-reported the violation, self-initiated remediation for the harm done to affected consumers, and fully cooperated with the Bureau’s investigation.

The Bureau has ongoing supervisory authority over GE Capital and will continue to conduct examinations of GE Capital to ensure its compliance with federal consumer financial law.

This news is courtesy of www.consumefinance.gov

BEIJING, Dec. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — “There is no fixed model of democracy,” China said in an official document published on Saturday detailing its democratic endeavors, and whether a country is democratic “should be acknowledged by the international community, not arbitrarily decided by a few self-appointed judges.”

Democracy, the white paper titled “China: Democracy That Works” said, is “an ideal” that has always been cherished by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people.

“Over the past hundred years, the Party has led the people in realizing people’s democracy in China. The Chinese people now truly hold in their hands their own future and that of society and the country,” the paper read.

China has termed its system “whole-process people’s democracy,” after President Xi Jinping proposed the concept two years ago in the city of Shanghai. That principle legitimates the people’s participation in day-to-day political activities at all levels, combining democratic elections, political consultation, decision-making and oversight.

The people’s status as masters of the country is the essence of people’s democracy, said the document released by China’s State Council Information Office.

‘China’s democracy has concrete, pragmatic practices’

“In China, the standard practice is to hear people’s voices, act on their needs, and pool their ideas and strength,” the document said.

According to official data, China has held 12 direct elections to people’s congresses at the township level and 11 direct elections to those at the county level, with a current participation rate of about 90 percent, since the initiation of reform and opening up.

Democratic consultation is a special feature of democracy in China. The Chinese people widely exercise their right to vote in elections and undertake extensive deliberations before major decisions are made.

The paper also stressed that the abuse of power for personal gain is eradicated by sound and effective democratic oversight.

Supervision of power extends across every area and into every corner, it said.

China’s own model of democracy

Instead of just simply copying others’ democratic models, China takes its “national conditions and realities” into consideration and manifests its own truth.

“China draws on each and every political achievement of other countries, but does not imitate any of their models of democracy,” the document said. “The model that suits best is always the most appropriate.”

Whole-process people’s democracy stands in line with the country’s distinctive features, reflecting at the same time “humanity’s universal desire for democracy.”

Humanity’s quest for and experiments with greater democracy will never end, the paper said.

The true barrier to democracy lies not in different models of democracy, but in arrogance, prejudice and hostility towards other countries’ attempts to explore their own paths to democracy, and in assumed superiority and the determination to impose one’s own model of democracy on others, it added.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-04/China-issues-white-paper-on-its-democracy-15IaQ4prtq8/index.html

SOURCE CGTN

CONTACT: Jiang Simin, +86-188-2655-3286, cgtn@cgtn.com

Related Links
www.cgtn.com

BEIJING, Dec. 31, 2021 /CNW/ — As China strides toward the second centenary goal of building a great modern socialist country in all respects, 2022 will be another important year.

“To ensure that everyone leads a better life, we must never rest on what we have achieved, and there is still a long way to go,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping on the last day of 2021.

CGTN: Looking forward to 2022, China vows never to rest on what it has achieved, ready for a long way ahead
CGTN: Looking forward to 2022, China vows never to rest on what it has achieved, ready for a long way ahead
Since the year 2014, Xi has delivered New Year addresses for nine consecutive years, leading the Chinese people to look back at achievements and looking to the journey ahead.

China fulfills responsibility to history

After sending greetings to the Chinese people, the president continued his address with describing the year 2021 as “exceptionally significant”.

“At the historical convergence of the Two Centenary Goals, we have set out on a new journey of building a modern socialist country in all respects and are making confident strides on the path toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” he said.

In 2021, China realized the first centenary goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respect, the Communist Party of China (CPC) celebrated its centenary, and the resolution on major achievements and the historical experience of CPC over the past century was adopted.

He announced on July 1 that China has realized its first centenary goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. Poverty eradication is considered the “bottom-line task” in attaining this milestone development goal.

Realization of a moderately prosperous society in all respects and elimination of extreme poverty is what the CPC has delivered to the Chinese people, and it is also a contribution to the world, Xi said on Friday.

China’s fight against COVID-19 and contribution to the global COVID-19 response is another highlight.

Reviewing phone calls and virtual meetings with foreign leaders and heads of international organizations, he said that only through unity, solidarity and cooperation can countries around the world write a new chapter in building a community with a shared future for mankind.

To date, China has provided two billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines to more than 120 countries and international organizations.

China ready for a long way ahead

“The world is turning its eyes to China, and China is ready,” Xi said when eyeing the coming year.

The Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games are about a month away, making Beijing the first city in the world to host both Summer and Winter Olympics.

Noting that realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will be no easy task, he stressed the importance of carrying out “bold self-revolution so as to gain the historical initiative”.

The sixth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee held in November reviewed the Party’s endeavors over the past century, setting a guideline for the Party to achieve national rejuvenation by learning from history.

The plenum also decided to convene the 20th CPC National Congress in the second half of 2022, a highly important event of great political significance for both the Party and the country.

“The concerns of the people are what I always care about, and the aspirations of the people are what I always strive for,” Xi said.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-31/China-vows-never-rest-on-the-achieved-ready-for-a-long-way-ahead-16rIxPSgxfq/index.html

SOURCE CGTN

CONTACT: Jiang Simin, +86-188-2655-3286, cgtn@cgtn.com

TAMPA, Fla. – A federal investigation into pay practices at a technology subsidiary of global banking giant Citigroup revealed the Florida company denied hundreds of employees’ overtime compensation and did not maintain time records, both violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

After a U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Citigroup Technology Inc. in Tampa, the employer has paid 882 employees a total of $1,870,009 in back wages and a civil penalty of $97,680 for repeat violations. The division’s investigation focused on CTI’s Anti-Money Laundering Division and its practice of classifying analysts improperly as administratively exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. By misapplying an exemption to these workers, CTI denied them overtime compensation when they worked more than 40 hours in a work week. The employer also failed to maintain required time records for these employees, as required by law.

“Employers must understand that simply paying an employee a salary does not necessarily mean the employee is not eligible for overtime,” said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Dr. David Weil. “The back wages and penalties paid in this case should cause other employers to take note, and to examine their pay practices. The Wage and Hour division will continue its vigorous enforcement of the law, including the overtime regulations, to ensure that workers take home every penny they have rightfully earned.”

CTI has paid the back wages, will comply with the FLSA going forward, and has signed an agreement with the department which requires them to review compliance for all of their remaining analyst positions and notify the Wage and Hour Division in writing if any back wages are due. The wages and penalty cover violations committed between Nov. 2, 2013 and Oct. 31, 2015.

The FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Job titles do not determine exempt status. For an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. On May 18, 2016 the department announced a Final Rule updating these requirements. The effective date of the final rule is Dec. 1, 2016.

CTI’s parent company is Citigroup, a leading global bank with approximately 200 million customer accounts and business in more than 160 countries and jurisdictions.

LONDON, Nov. 15, 2021 — Investors have until 3 December 2021 to take advantage of the current EB-5 investor visa in the USA. The investment program allows applicants to obtain a green card by investing 500,000 USD in a qualifying business. On 3 December, Congress will be voting on the US budget, with many proponents pushing for a potential increase to 750,000 or 900,000 USD.

With the US passport ranked as the most powerful passport in the world, via the recently launched Global Passport Index, US citizenship is an important asset for any international investor. The Global Passport Index, created by the investment migration consultancy Global Citizen Solutions, provides a pioneering methodology that considers investment opportunities and quality of living alongside travel mobility.

“From limitless work opportunities and top-rated education to exceptional living standards, the USA is an easy choice for those looking beyond just a simple investment. While the approaching debate in Congress is something for us to keep an eye on, there is still time to take advantage of the current EB-5 investment cost. My only advice is if you’re considering an investor visa in the US, submit your application soon. There’s no telling what will happen next year” , points out Patricia Casaburi, Managing Director at Global Citizen Solutions.

Investing in an EB-5 visa grants applicants and their family members the right to permanently live in the United States, with the possibility to receive your contribution back after the investment project is completed.

To qualify for the EB-5, applicants must directly invest at least $500,000 into a US-based business in Targeted Employment Areas (TEA), which is classified as areas in need of economic stimulation. The respective investment must create at least ten full-time jobs for American workers. Alternatively, applicants can invest $1million in non-targeted areas. Other conditions for applicants include holding a clean criminal record and being in excellent health. A key perk of the EB5 scheme is that the investor can obtain citizenship after five years, provided they live for six months per year in the United States.

The EB-5 visa program was created in 1990 to encourage foreign direct investment in new business development in rural or areas with high levels of unemployment. Through the visa program, foreign nationals can qualify for green cards in exchange for qualifying investments.

Gizane Campos
gizane@globalcitizensolutions.com
+44 7968563689

SOURCE Global Citizen Solutions

U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida, Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York and Regional Director Jay Bergman of the Andean Region of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced today the unsealing of five indictments in U.S. federal courts in Brooklyn, New York, and Miami charging 17 alleged leaders and associates of Colombia’s largest and most influential BACRIM (banda criminal or criminal group), Clan Usuga (formerly referred to as Los Urabeños). The alleged leaders and other high-ranking members of Clan Usuga are charged with operating continuing criminal enterprises, participating in international cocaine trafficking conspiracies and using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes. Clan Usuga and many of its principal leaders have been previously designated by the President of the United States and the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control as specially designated narcotics traffickers pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. The Department of State has posted a $5 million reward for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of alleged Clan Usuga principal leader Dairo Antonio Usuga David, also known as Otoniel.

“The cases referenced today demonstrate that the U.S. government, in collaboration with our international law enforcement partners, continues to successfully combat leaders and associates of BACRIM criminal enterprises that seek to supply narcotics to the United States,” said U.S. Attorney Ferrer. “Together, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Colombian authorities strive to systematically dismantle one BACRIM structure after another and eliminate the threat they pose to our communities.”

“The indictments announced today are the result of a sweeping national and international effort to stem the flow of drugs across the world and into our communities,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Currie. “We stand united with our partners in Colombia in our unwavering commitment to root out the leaders of drug trafficking criminal enterprises wherever they may be found.”

U.S. Attorney Ferrer and Acting U.S. Attorney Currie extended their grateful appreciation to the DEA’s New York Field Division, Miami Field Division and the Bogotá Country Office as well as the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) New York El Dorado Task Force and the Colombian National Police, the agencies responsible for leading the investigations. Mr. Ferrer and Mr. Currie also expressed their gratitude for the invaluable assistance provided by the Colombian Fiscalia General and the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.

“These indictments are the culmination of years of work and far too often heartfelt sacrifice by the brave men and women of the Colombian National Police and the Office of the Prosecutor General of Colombia,” said DEA Regional Director Bergman. “These indictments represent the United States’ steadfast bilateral commitment to conclusively dismantle what is the largest and arguably the last of the nationally structured criminal bands in Colombia.”

“Today’s indictments illustrate our commitment, along with our international law enforcement partners to disrupt a criminal network responsible for smuggling tons of cocaine into the United States,” said Country Attaché Luis Sierra of ICE-HSI in Colombia. “HSI will continue to use its unique customs authorities to attack and dismantle these types of organizations and will aggressively pursue leads, regardless of where that information may lead us.”

Six of the Clan Usuga leaders were charged in both Brooklyn and Miami. Dairo Antonio Usuga-David aka “Otoniel,” “Mao,” “Gallo,” and “Mauricio-Gallo,” is alleged to be the principal leader of CLAN USUGA. Roberto Vargas Gutierrez aka “Gavilan,” Carlos Alberto Moreno Turberquia aka “Nicolas,” Aristides Manuel Mesa Paez aka “El Indio,” and Cesar Daniel Anaya Martinez aka “Tierra,” are alleged commanders of Clan Usuga responsible for collecting drug taxes, managing armed combatants and maintaining control over specific territorial areas within Colombia. Also charged in Brooklyn and Miami is an alleged manager of Clan Usuga, Ramiro Caro Pineda aka “Nolasco,” who was in charge of collecting drug taxes, coordinating drug shipments and maintaining control over airstrips and ports on the coast of Colombia.

The Brooklyn indictments also charge seven other cartel leaders, including Daniel Rendon-Herrera aka “Don Mario,” the original founder and prior leader of Clan Usuga; Luis Orlando Padierna Pena aka “Inglaterra,” and Jobanis de Jesus Avila Villadiego aka “Chiquito” and “Chiquito Malo,” commanders of Clan Usuga; and Jhoni Alberto Grajales aka “Guajiro,” Orlando Gutierrez-Rendon aka “Negro Orlando,” Gustavo Palomino Araujo aka “Camilo,” and Eduard Fernando Cardoza-Giraldo aka “Boliqueso” – alleged leaders of drug collections offices and paramilitary armed groups aligned with Clan Usuga.

A Miami indictment unsealed today charges Dairo Antonio Usuga-David aka “Otoniel,” “Mao,” and “Mauricio,” Jairo De Jesus Durango Restrepo aka “Gua Gua,” Roberto Vargas Gutierrez aka “Gavilan,” Aristides Manuel Mesa Paez aka “El Indio,” Alverio Feo Alvarado aka “Benevides,” Oscar David Pulgarin-Ganan aka “Nino” and “Coroso,” Ramiro Caro-Pineda aka “Nolasco” and “Hugo,” Cesar Daniel Anaya Martinez aka “Tierra,” and Eduardo Luis Vargas Gutierrez aka “Pipon,” with conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowing that it would be imported into the United States. Specifically, the defendants are charged with the distribution from as early as 2002 through June 2015, in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico and elsewhere.

According to a previously unsealed superseding indictment out of Miami, beginning around October 2006 through Feb. 10, 2012, defendants Henry De Jesus Lopez Londono aka “Mi Sangre,” “Salvador,” “Carlos Mario,” “Brother,” “Krackin,” and “Federico,” Jhon Fernando Giraldo Usuga aka “Simon,” and “Revenlino,” Arley Usuga Torres aka “07,” “Siete,” and “Samuel,” Jose Carlos Londono Robledo aka “Tito” and “Wolverine,” Carlos Antonio Moreno Tuberquia aka “Nicholas,” Edison Gomez Molina aka “El Doctor,” and Juan Diego Giraldo Usuga aka “Menor” and “Camilo,” are charged with conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine knowing that it would be imported into the United States. Gomez Molina, Giraldo Usuga and Fernando Usuga pleaded guilty to the superseding indictment on Nov. 26, 2013, March 20, 2014, and May 8, 2014, respectively. According to their stipulated factual proffers, from at least October 2006 through February 2012, Gomez Molina, Giraldo Usuga and Fernando Usuga, along with others, used airplanes and other means of transportation to ship multiple loads of cocaine from Colombia to Central America. The loads ranged anywhere from 300 to 600 kilograms each. From there, the cocaine would be delivered to representatives of other organizations, who would take the cocaine and ultimately import it into the United States. Each defendant admitted that he was responsible for the shipment or attempted shipment of at least 150 kilograms of cocaine and knew that the cocaine would ultimately be imported into the United States. Gomez Molina was sentenced to serve 63 months in prison on Feb. 4, 2014. Girlado Usuga was sentenced to serve 63 months in prison on June 9, 2014. Fernando Usuga was sentenced to serve 168 months in prison on Aug. 29, 2014.

In another Miami indictment, Victor Alfonso Mosquera Perez aka “Negro,” is charged with conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowing that it would be imported into the United States. Specifically, the distribution allegedly occurred from as early as 2008 until approximately May 9, 2014, in Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

According to another indictment, Andres Fernandez Perez-Restrepo aka “Anthrax,” is charged with conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowing that it would imported into the United States. Specifically, the defendant is alleged to have committed the distribution from at least as early as July 2012 through March 2, 2014, in Colombia, Honduras and elsewhere.

As detailed in one of the Brooklyn indictments, between June 2003 and December 2014, Usuga-David, Vargas Gutierrez, Moreno Turberquia, Padierna Pena, Avila Villadiego, Anaya Martinez and others, as leaders of Clan Usuga, conspired to import more than 73 metric tons of cocaine into the United States. Clan Usuga coordinated the production, purchase and transfer of multi-ton shipments of cocaine, as well as the receipt of shipments of cocaine in Mexico and Central America, for ultimate importation into the United States. Clan Usuga also controlled territory in various areas in Colombia and imposed a tax on any drug traffickers operating in those territories – a set fee for every kilogram of cocaine that was manufactured, stored or transported through areas under their control. The indictment further alleges that these defendants employed sicarios, or hitmen, who carried out acts of violence including murders, assaults, kidnappings and assassinations to collect drug debts, maintain discipline, control and expand drug territory and to promote and enhance the position of the organization.

In a second of the indictments unsealed in Brooklyn, Orlando Gutierrez-Rendon aka “Negro Orlando,” is charged with leading the Gutierrez-Rendon drug trafficking organization, a cocaine trafficking and cocaine-debt collection organization based in Cali, Colombia, that was aligned with Clan Usuga. According to the indictment, the Gutierrez-Rendon’s organization was involved in multi-ton shipments of cocaine from Colombia to Mexico, El Salvador and Panama for ultimate importation into the United States. The organization is also alleged to have acted as a collection agency, using violence and murder to collect payments and outstanding debts related to cocaine shipments on behalf of Clan Usuga. In exchange for its role in collecting funds, the organization received ownership interests in the cocaine shipments. Gutierrez-Rendon is also charged with conspiring to murder rival drug traffickers, including the murder of Samir Garcia. Between January 2006 and May 2013, Gutierrez-Rendon allegedly imported more than 30,000 kilograms of cocaine into the United States.

In a third Brooklyn indictment, Gustavo Palomino Araujo aka “Soldado,” “Zarco,” and “Camilo,” is charged with leading the Palomino Araujo, an organization responsible for cocaine trafficking, cocaine-debt collection and a paramilitary organization based in Cali, Colombia, that was aligned with Clan Usuga. The organization allegedly facilitated the transfer of multi-ton shipments of cocaine from Colombia to Mexico and Central America for importation into the United States, controlled territory in various areas in Colombia, imposed a tax on any drug traffickers operating in regions under its control and employed sicarios, or hitmen, to collect debts. Palomino Araujo is also charged with conspiring to murder numerous drug rivals.

In the fourth Brooklyn indictment, Eduard Fernando Cardoza-Giraldo aka “Boliqueso,” is charged with international cocaine trafficking in connection with his role in controlling a drug debt collection office aligned with Clan Usuga.

In all, 25 individuals have been charged in the investigations coordinated between the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in Brooklyn and Miami. All of the defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison, if convicted of the charges against them. Certain individuals named in indictments unsealed today have also been charged by other U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country. These cases are the result of the ongoing efforts by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The OCDETF mission is to identify, investigate and prosecute high level members of drug trafficking enterprises, bringing together the combined expertise and unique abilities of federal, state and local law enforcement.

The cases in the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven L. Tiscione, Gina M. Parlovecchio and Margaret Lee of the office’s International Narcotics and Money Laundering Section.

The cases in the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Nadler of the office’s Narcotics Section.

An indictment is a formal charging document notifying the defendant of the charges. All persons charged in an indictment are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Copyright rules haven’t caught up with today’s technological world. For example, consumers are sometimes denied access to online content because of the country they live in. German Greens/EFA member Julia Reda wrote an own initiative report on copyright to feed into upcoming proposals by the European Commission to update current legislation. MEPs debate the report on Thursday 9 July and vote on it afterwards. Check out our infographic and follow the debate.

Reda analysed in the report the implementation of the information society directive from 2001 and made recommendations on how to adapt it to make it suitable for the digital age. “When the [current] directive was composed, there were neither smartphones, nor YouTube nor Facebook,” said Reda. She also pointed out that the exchange of copyright protected content across countries had increased significantly since the directive entered into force.

The report’s main points
Geo-blocking is when companies stop consumers in another country from using their on-line services, often without justification. The report stressed that copyright protected content should be accessible across borders. For example, geo-blocking should not prevent Europe’s cultural minorities from accessing content or services in their own language. However, the text also underlined the importance of territorial licences, particularly for financing audio-visual and film production.

Freedom of panorama means people have the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings without having to compensate for the use of copyright. It exists in some EU countries, but not all. The report adopted by the committee says that pictures of public buildings need the authorisation of the rightholder for commercial use. However, following a heated debate in the media, this could still change in the final vote.

The report also calls for a number of exception and limitations, for example for research and education purposes. This should especially apply to online and cross-border activities, such as school exchange programmes. The Commission should assess whether to include exceptions allowing libraries to lend e-books.

Next steps
Once adopted, the report can be used by the European Commission to draft its proposal, which is expected by the end of 2015.

Today, the United States won court approval of a settlement agreement to reform the ways in which the Portland Oregon Police Bureau (“PPB”) interacts with individuals with actual or perceived mental illness. The agreement was entered jointly by the United States and the city of Portland, Oregon, with the approval of the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform (“AMA Coalition”) and Portland Police Association (“PPA”). The agreement addresses constitutional claims in a civil action filed by the United States pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In today’s order, the court approved the agreement with the requirement that the parties appear for periodic hearings to provide the court progress on implementation of the agreement.

The agreement requires changes—many of which PPB has already begun to implement—in PPB’s policy, training, supervisory oversight, community-based mental health services, crisis intervention, employee information systems, officer accountability and community engagement and oversight. The agreement also calls for innovative new mechanisms for ongoing community involvement in the implementation of reforms. In addition, the agreement establishes an independent compliance officer and community liaison (“COCL”), who will be responsible for synthesizing data related to PPB’s use of force, reporting to the city council, the Justice Department and the public and gathering input from the public related to PPB’s compliance with the agreement. Finally, the agreement lays the framework for a community oversight advisory board (“COAB”), which will be a crucial mechanism for civil engagement in the reform process.

“We are committed to continuing to work with our partners in the community throughout the reform process to ensure full implementation of the settlement agreement,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Molly Moran for the Civil Rights Division. “We applaud the city’s efforts to implement portions of the settlement agreement during the pendency of the litigation. We are pleased to provide the court information about reforms through ongoing periodic hearings. We are also appreciative of the continued collaboration with the AMA Coalition and the participation of the PPA to resolve these issues to enable the entry of the settlement agreement. We look forward to the positive changes that these civil rights reforms will bring about for the people of Portland.”

“Today’s decision is the culmination of significant work on the part of all parties to reach such a groundbreaking resolution for the citizens of Portland ,” said U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall for the District of Oregon. “We are very grateful to the court for entering this order, and look forward to continued collaboration with the city of Portland, the Portland Police Bureau, the Portland Police Association, the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform , and all citizens of Portland to ensure the letter and the spirit of this agreement are upheld.”

The United States’ complaint followed an investigation, launched on June 8, 2011, and conducted by the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon. The investigation focused on whether PPB engages in unconstitutional or unlawful policing through the use of excessive force, with a specific focus on the use of force against people with actual or perceived mental illness or in mental health crisis.

In a September 2012 findings letter detailing the outcome of the 14-month investigation, the Justice Department found that most uses of force by PPB officers were lawful and reasonable, but it also found reasonable cause to believe that PPB engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, in certain contexts. Following the release of the findings letter, the United States and the city engaged in settlement negotiations resulting in the settlement agreement, which the city council voted to approve. The city fully cooperated with the United States throughout its investigation and was eager to address problems identified in the United States’ findings letter regarding Portland Police Bureau’s policies, practices, training and supervision through entry of the settlement agreement.

On Dec. 17, 2012, the United States initiated a lawsuit against the city and, with the city’s cooperation, concurrently filed a joint motion asking the court to approve the negotiated settlement agreement and conditionally dismiss the case. Specifically, the United States’ complaint alleged that PPB engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force on individuals with actual or perceived mental illness by: (1) too frequently using a higher level of force than necessary; (2) using electronic control weapons (“ECWs”), commonly referred to as “Tasers,” in circumstances when such force is not justified, or deploying ECWs more times than necessary on an individual; and (3) using a higher degree of force than justified for low-level offenses.

Both PPA and the AMA Coalition subsequently moved to intervene in the suit, seeking to join the case as parties and objecting to the proposed settlement agreement. The court partially granted PPA’s motion to intervene and granted the AMA Coalition enhanced amicus status, allowing the AMA Coalition to participate in the litigation. The court then ordered all parties to mediation to attempt to resolve PPA’s and the AMA Coalition’s objections to the settlement agreement. Such mediation efforts have resulted in a memorandum of understanding with PPA and a separate agreement previously reached with the AMA Coalition.

Following a fairness hearing on the settlement agreement, the court previously found that the settlement agreement is substantively fair, reasonable and adequate. The court found, however, that it needed a procedure to receive information on the city’s implementation of reforms on at least an annual basis. In today’s ruling, the court required the parties and COCL to file quarterly reports with the court and required the parties to appear for periodic hearings to describe to the court the progress being made toward achieving substantial compliance with all provisions of the settlement agreement and any obstacles or impediments toward that end, and to respond to the court’s questions on these issues.

The assigned attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office in Portland were Bill Williams, Adrian Brown and David Knight. From the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., the assigned attorneys were Laura Coon, Jonas Geissler and Michelle Jones.

For more information on the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt .

Credit Suisse AG pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers in filing false income tax returns and other documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The guilty plea by the Swiss corporation is the result of a years-long investigation by U.S. law enforcement authorities that has also produced indictments of eight Credit Suisse executives since 2011; two of those individuals have pleaded guilty so far.

The plea agreement, along with agreements made with state and federal partners, provides that Credit Suisse will pay a total of $2.6 billion – $1.8 billion to the Department of Justice for the U.S. Treasury, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services. The plea agreement was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia today. Earlier this year, Credit Suisse paid approximately $196 million in disgorgement, interest and penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for violating the federal securities laws by providing cross-border brokerage and investment advisory services to U.S. clients without first registering with the SEC. That settlement with the SEC is also reflected in today’s plea agreement. Together, these actions by U.S. law enforcement and state and federal partners appropriately punish Credit Suisse for its past behavior in these matters.

The announcement was made by Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally for the Justice Department’s Tax Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Commissioner John Koskinen of the IRS.

“This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law,” said Attorney General Holder. “Credit Suisse conspired to help U.S. citizens hide assets in offshore accounts in order to evade paying taxes. When a bank engages in misconduct this brazen, it should expect that the Justice Department will pursue criminal prosecution to the fullest extent possible, as has happened here.”

As part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse acknowledged that, for decades prior to and through 2009, it operated an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts and concealing their offshore assets and income from the IRS.

“Credit Suisse’s guilty plea is just the latest effort by the department to slam the door shut on undeclared bank accounts, phony trusts and other foreign schemes used by U.S. taxpayers to evade taxes,” said Deputy Attorney General Cole. “We will continue to hold to account the bankers, the brokers and other professionals in Switzerland and around the world as well as the institutions that trained and directed them to use bank secrecy laws to protect U.S. tax cheats.”

According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Credit Suisse employed a variety of means to assist U.S. clients in concealing their undeclared accounts, including by:

• assisting clients in using sham entities to hide undeclared accounts;
• soliciting IRS forms that falsely stated, under penalties of perjury, that the sham entities were the beneficial owners of the assets in the accounts;
• failing to maintain in the United States records related to the accounts;
• destroying account records sent to the United States for client review;
• using Credit Suisse managers and employees as unregistered investment advisors on undeclared accounts;
• facilitating withdrawals of funds from the undeclared accounts by either providing hand-delivered cash in the United States or using Credit Suisse’s correspondent bank accounts in the United States;
• structuring transfers of funds to evade currency transaction reporting requirements; and
• providing offshore credit and debit cards to repatriate funds in the undeclared accounts.

As part of the plea agreement, Credit Suisse further agreed to make a complete disclosure of its cross-border activities, cooperate in treaty requests for account information, provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed, and to close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations. Credit Suisse has also agreed to implement programs to ensure its compliance with U.S. laws, including its reporting obligations under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and relevant tax treaties, in all its current and future dealings with U.S. customers.

“Today’s plea by Credit Suisse is a significant step in our global enforcement against those who would avoid their tax obligations by hiding their assets in foreign bank accounts, and those financial institutions, bankers, and other professionals who facilitate this conduct,” said Assistant Attorney General Keneally for the Tax Division. “Credit Suisse has also changed its business operations to ensure that U.S. taxpayers will no longer be able to hide their assets at Credit Suisse, and provided the government with valuable information that will further our investigations.”

“This prosecution and plea should serve notice that secret accounts and assisting the evasion of income taxes has a high cost,” said U.S. Attorney Boente. “Concealing financial accounts from the U.S. government is not a legitimate part of wealth management or private banking services.”

“Pursuing international tax evasion is a priority area for IRS Criminal Investigation, and we will continue to follow the money here in the United States and around the world” said IRS Commissioner Koskinen. “I want to commend the special agents in IRS-Criminal Investigation for all of their hard work in this area and the close cooperation with the Department of Justice. Today’s guilty plea is another important milestone in ongoing law enforcement efforts to investigate the use of offshore accounts to evade taxes. People should no longer feel comfortable hiding their assets and income from the IRS.”

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is also announcing today that it has reached a resolution with Credit Suisse, by which Credit Suisse has agreed to a cease and desist order, certain remedial steps to ensure its compliance with U.S. law in its ongoing operations, and a civil monetary penalty of $100 million. Additionally, the New York State Department of Financial Services is announcing a similar resolution by which Credit Suisse has agreed to a cease and desist order and a monetary penalty of $715 million.

* * *

On Feb. 23, 2011, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an indictment charging four Credit Suisse employees – Marco Parenti Adami, a former Credit Suisse manager; Emanuel Agustino, a former Credit Suisse banker; Michele Bergantino. a former Credit Suisse banker; and Roger Schaerer, Credit Suisse’s former Representative Officer in its Representative Office in New York – with conspiring with other Swiss bankers and U.S. taxpayers to defraud the United States. On July 21, 2011, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment adding four additional defendants charged with the conspiracy to defraud the United States. The four new defendants were: Markus Walder, the former head of North America Offshore Banking at Credit Suisse; Süsanne D. Rüegg Meier, a former Credit Suisse manager; Andreas Bachmann, a former banker at Credit Suisse Fides, a subsidiary of Credit Suisse; and Josef Dörig, a former Credit Suisse Fides employee and owner/operator of a trust company. On March 12, 2014, Bachmann pleaded guilty to the superseding indictment in connection with his work as a banker at Credit Suisse Fides. On April 30, 2014, Dörig pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the IRS in connection with his role managing offshore entities used by U.S. taxpayers to conceal their accounts at Credit Suisse. Those pleas were accepted by U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee. Bachmann and Dörig each face maximum penalties of five years in prison when they are sentenced on Aug. 8, 2014.

This news is courtesy of www.justice.gov

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Secretary Anthony Foxx of the Department of Transportation, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, Administrator Mark R. Rosekind of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT-OIG), Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), and Assistant Director in charge Diego Rodriguez of the FBI’s New York Field Office, announced the filing of criminal charges against General Motors Company (GM or the company), an automotive company headquartered in Detroit, that has designed, manufactured, assembled and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn brand vehicles, among others. GM is charged with concealing a potentially deadly safety defect from its U.S. regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), from the spring of 2012 through February 2014, and, in the process, misleading consumers concerning the safety of certain of GM’s cars. The defect consisted of an ignition switch that had been designed and manufactured with too-low torque resistance and could therefore move easily out of the “Run” position into “Accessory” or “Off” (the defective switch). When the switch moved out of Run, it could disable the affected car’s frontal airbags – increasing the risk of death and serious injury in certain types of crashes in which airbags were otherwise designed to deploy. The models equipped with the defective switch were the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt; the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Pontiac G5; the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 Saturn Ion; the 2006 and 2007 Chevrolet HHR; the 2007 Saturn Sky; and the 2006 and 2007 Pontiac Solstice. To date, GM has acknowledged a total of 15 deaths, as well as a number of serious injuries, caused by the defective switch.

U.S. Attorney Bharara also announced a deferred prosecution agreement with GM (the agreement) under which the company admits that it failed to disclose a safety defect to NHTSA and misled U.S. consumers about that same defect. The admissions are contained in a detailed statement of facts attached to the agreement. The agreement imposes on GM an independent monitor to review and assess policies, practices and procedures relating to GM’s safety-related public statements, sharing of engineering data and recall processes. The agreement also requires GM to transfer $900 million to the United States by no later than Sept. 24, 2015, and agree to the forfeiture of those funds pursuant to a parallel civil action also filed today in the Southern District of New York.

The criminal charges are contained in an information (the information) alleging one count of engaging in a scheme to conceal material facts from NHTSA and one count of wire fraud. If GM abides by all of the terms of the agreement, the government will defer prosecution on the information for three years and then seek to dismiss the charges.

“Every consumer has the right to expect that car manufacturers are taking their safety seriously,” said Attorney General Lynch. “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that the products Americans buy are safe; that consumers are protected from harm; and that auto companies follow the law.”

“General Motors not only failed to disclose this deadly defect, but as the Department of Justice investigation shows, it actively concealed the truth from NHTSA and the public,” said Transportation Secretary Foxx. “Today’s announcement sends a message to manufacturers: deception and delay are unacceptable, and the price for engaging in such behavior is high.”

“For nearly two years, GM failed to disclose a deadly safety defect to the public and its regulator,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “By doing so, GM put its customers and the driving public at serious risk. Justice requires the filing of criminal charges, detailed admissions, a significant financial penalty, and the appointment of a federal monitor. These measures are designed to make sure that this never happens again.”

“Today’s action strengthens NHTSA’s efforts to protect the driving public,” said Administrator Rosekind. “It sends a message not only to GM, but to the entire auto industry, that when it comes to safety, telling the full truth is the only option.”

“To the families and friends of those who died and to those who were injured as a result of crashes related to GM’s defective ignition switches, I offer my deepest sympathies for your loss and my highest admiration for the strength you demonstrate every day,” said Inspector General Scovel III. “As is true for Secretary Foxx and the Department of Transportation, safety is and will remain the highest priority of my office, and we will continue to work relentlessly to ensure accountability throughout the Department and transportation sector. The OIG is committed to working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners in pursuing those who commit criminal violations. The efforts of this dedicated multi-agency team and the agreement reached with General Motors, and that with Toyota in March 2014, must continue to serve as a clarion call to all auto manufacturers and their suppliers of the need to be vigilant and forthcoming to keep the public safe.”

“General Motors’ criminal conduct found by SIGTARP and our law enforcement partners defies comprehension,” said Special Inspector General Goldsmith Romero. “Our investigation uncovered that GM learned about a life-threatening ignition switch defect that would cause air bags not to inflate, but concealed the deadly safety defect from its regulator, and from people buying used cars from GM dealers. The worst part about this tragedy is that it was entirely avoidable. GM could have significantly reduced the risk of this deadly defect by improving the key design for less than one dollar per vehicle but GM chose not to because of the cost. Americans stepped up and bailed out General Motors with $50 billion; and General Motors must step up and make substantial corporate changes to prevent anything like this from happening again. SIGTARP commends U.S. Attorney Bharara for bringing these charges and standing united in the fight against TARP-related crime.”

“GM concealed a safety defect from consumers and regulators, which put drivers at risk,” said Assistant Director in Charge Rodriguez. “The resolution of this case shows that safety should never take a backseat to expediency.”

According to the allegations in the information, as well as other documents filed today in the Southern District of New York, including the statement of facts:

From the spring of 2012 through February 2014, GM deceived consumers and failed to make a required disclosure to NHTSA, its U.S. regulator, by regarding the connection that certain of its personnel had identified between the defective switch and airbag non-deployment. GM also falsely represented to consumers that vehicles equipped with the defective switch posed no safety concern.

Early Knowledge of the Defective Switch

GM engineers knew before the defective switch even went into production in 2002 that it was prone to easy movement out of the Run position. Testing of a prototype showed that the torque return between the Run and Accessory positions fell below GM’s own internal specifications. But the engineer in charge of the defective switch approved its production anyway.

In 2004 and 2005, as GM employees, media representatives and GM customers began to experience sudden stalls and engine shutoffs caused by the defective switch, GM considered fixing the problem. However, having decided that the switch did not pose a safety concern, and citing cost and other factors, engineers responsible for decision-making on the issue opted to leave the defective switch as it was and simply promulgate an advisory to dealerships with tips on how to minimize the risk of unexpected movement out of the Run position. GM even rejected a simple improvement to the head of the key that would have significantly reduced unexpected shutoffs at a price of less than a dollar a car.

At the same time, in June 2005, GM made public statements that, while acknowledging the existence of the defective switch, gave assurance that the defect did not pose a safety concern.

GM’s Knowledge that the Defective Switch Causes Airbag Non-Deployment

By the spring of 2012, GM knew that the defective switch presented a safety defect because it could cause airbag non-deployment in certain GM cars. Specifically, GM personnel investigating the cause of a series of airbag non-deployment incidents learned that the defective switch could cause frontal airbag non-deployment in at least some model years of the Cobalt, and were aware of several fatal incidents and serious injuries that occurred as a result of accidents in which the defective switch may have caused or contributed to airbag non-deployment. This knowledge extended well above the ranks of investigating engineers to certain supervisors and attorneys at the company.

GM’s Failure to Disclose the Defect and Recall Affected Cars

Yet not until approximately 20 months later, in February 2014, did GM first notify NHTSA and the public of the connection it had identified between the defective switch and airbag non-deployment incidents. The company thus egregiously disregarded NHTSA’s five-day regulatory reporting requirement for safety defects.

Moreover, for much of the period during which GM failed to disclose this safety defect, it not only failed to correct its June 2005 assurance that the defective switch posed no safety concern but also actively touted the reliability and safety of cars equipped with the defective switch, with a view to promoting sales of used GM cars. Although GM sold no new cars equipped with the defective switch during this period, GM dealers were still, from in or about the spring of 2012 through in or about the spring of 2013, selling pre-owned Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn brand cars that would later become subject to the February 2014 recalls. These sales were accompanied by certifications from GM, assuring the unwitting consumers that the vehicles’ components, including their ignition systems and keys, met all safety standards.

GM’s delay in disclosing the defect at issue was the product of actions by certain personnel responsible for shepherding safety defects through GM’s internal recall process, who delayed the recall until GM could fully package, present, explain and handle the deadly problem. Rather than move swiftly and efficiently toward recall of at least the population of cars known to be affected by the safety defect and thus certainly destined for recall, GM personnel took affirmative steps to keep the company’s internal investigation into airbag non-deployment caused by the defective switch “offline” – outside of GM’s regular recall process.

Moreover, on at least two occasions while the defective switch condition was well known by some within GM but not disclosed to the public or NHTSA, GM personnel made incomplete and therefore misleading presentations to NHTSA assuring the regulator that GM would and did act promptly, effectively and in accordance with its formal recall policy to respond to safety problems – including airbag-related safety defects.

GM’s Acceptance of Responsibility and Cooperation in the Government Investigation

In February 2014, GM finally conducted a recall of approximately 700,000 vehicles affected by the defective switch. By March 2014, the recall population had grown to more than 2 million vehicles.

Since February 2014 and the inception of this federal criminal investigation, GM has taken exemplary actions to demonstrate acceptance and acknowledgement of responsibility for its conduct. GM, among other things, conducted a swift and robust internal investigation, furnished the government with a continuous flow of unvarnished facts gathered during the course of that internal investigation, voluntarily provided, without prompting, certain documents and information otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege, provided timely and meaningful cooperation more generally in the federal criminal investigation, terminated wrongdoers and established a full and independent victim compensation program that has to date paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in awards.

The Department of Justice announced today that Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte) has agreed to pay $11.38 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it submitted false claims under a General Services Administration (GSA) contract. Deloitte is a nationwide consulting company headquartered in New York City.

“Contractors are expected to deal fairly with federal agencies when receiving taxpayer funds,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “As this settlement demonstrates, we will take action against those who knowingly fail to live up to the terms of their government contracts.”

In 2000, GSA awarded Deloitte a contract for the provision of information technology services. The contract required Deloitte to reduce the prices it charged the government if it offered lower prices to specific commercial customers during the course of the contract. This settlement resolves allegations that between 2006 and 2012, Deloitte failed to comply with the price reductions clause in its contract, resulting in government customers paying more for Deloitte’s services than comparable commercial customers.

“American taxpayers deserve fair deals and prices from GSA contractors,” said GSA Inspector General Carol Fortine Ochoa. “I appreciate the hard work and dedication that led to this significant recovery.”

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the GSA Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

WASHINGTON —
Democracy is succeeding in Latin America and can be a beacon to the rest of the world, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis said yesterday at the Defense Ministerial in Cancun, Mexico.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis speaks with Mexican Army Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, the secretary of national defense, during an armed forces parade in Mexico City, Sept. 15, 2017. DOD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Jette Carr
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis speaks with Mexican Army Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, the secretary of national defense, during an armed forces parade in Mexico City, Sept. 15, 2017. DOD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Jette Carr
The Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, co-hosted by Mexican Secretary of National Defense Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda and Mexican Secretary of Navy Adm. Vidal Francisco Soberon Sanz, allows defense ministers from Canada to Chile to gather and discuss shared hemispheric defense challenges. The forum was founded by then-Defense Secretary William J. Perry.

“From Ottawa to Buenos Aires to Santiago, from south to north and from east to west, our nations increasingly represent an island of democratic stability amidst a global sea of instability due to malign influence,” Mattis said during his address. “In bringing us together, Mexico continues to show important strategic leadership building trusted relationships between us based on respect, cooperation, and mutual understanding.”

Mattis said there are challenges to stability and security in the Americas, from transnational criminal syndicates to illegal immigration to humanitarian issues.

Partnership is Crucial

Partnership among the nations of the hemisphere is crucial to addressing these challenges, he said.

Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are the exceptions to the rule in the region. Mattis called the leadership in Cuba “sad and unresponsive.” Nicaragua and Venezuela tried to model their countries after Cuba. But the nations, “cannot hide from the reality they face as the world recognizes that the Cuba model no longer works for anyone, even Cuba,” he said.

“Democracy is working,” Mattis said. “Our democratic nations send a message as we uphold our shared values, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, and sovereignty. And that message reverberates around the globe.”

The success is seen even in nations like Russia and China that still try to tear down the existing international order to emplace something that benefits them alone. Mattis said those countries “threaten sovereignty with predatory investments, piling up massive debt and seeking undue influence over other countries diplomatic, political, and economic decisions.”

Fostering Understanding, Cooperation

He called on the hemispheric nations to remain steadfast in the commitment to foster greater understanding and cooperation. “We see the positive impact our growing partnerships have for ensuring peace and stability in this region and beyond,” Mattis said. “We see it in this very room as we listen with respect to each other and the vision we have so we can collaborate better together.”

The challenges in the hemisphere cannot be addressed by one nation alone, Mattis said. “In tackling such difficult challenges together, we prove that like-minded nations are stronger when we collaborate, that we are then more responsive in serving our populations when disaster strikes,” he said. “So I express my support for making humanitarian assistance and disaster relief a permanent theme for the CDMA and for the Inter-American Defense Board to play a more intense role in strengthening regional humanitarian assistance/disaster relief cooperation, and my Department will stand with you, will stand alongside you, when trouble looms.”

Mattis noted the decision to send the hospital ship USNS Comfort is one example of cooperation. The ship will help relieve the strain on local health care systems overburdened by caring for refugees from Venezuela.

“We note that in the midst of … this man-made disaster in Venezuela that Russia is sending a bomber, while the U.S. Navy is sending a hospital ship with doctors,” he said.

The Comfort’s medical staff will come from the U.S. Navy, as well as Mexico and other area countries.
Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas Defense Secretary James N. Mattis Navy USS Comfort

MISSION
The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad.

The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to recover damages from a storage company that allegedly violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when it sold service members’ personal property without obtaining the necessary court orders. The defendants in this lawsuit are Daniel E. Homan and Horoy Inc., doing business as Across Town Movers—a San Diego, California, storage company. Homan is the President and sole owner of Horoy Inc.

The SCRA protects the rights of service members while on active duty by suspending or modifying certain civil obligations. The law states that a storage lien may not be enforced against service members during, or 90 days subsequent to, their period of military service without a court order. The Department of Justice’s complaint alleges that, since 2011, Across Town Movers sold the personal property of 11 service members without obtaining a required court order.

The complaint further alleges that after illegally selling one of the service member’s personal property, Across Town Movers continued to receive regular payments from the United States for storage of the sold property. That service member is U.S. Navy Master Chief Petty Officer Thomas E. Ward.

In 2006, Master Chief Ward, a 30-year veteran, was deployed overseas. He placed his valuable car parts and many household items into storage, and entrusted Across Town Movers to keep his personal property safe until he returned. Just before he returned home, he learned that Across Town Movers had auctioned all of his stored personal property, including vintage original car parts.

“Federal law does not allow storage companies to sell the contents of a service member’s storage lot without a court order,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “Storage companies should check the Defense Department’s military database and other resources before conducting any auction to see if the customer is protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the rights of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and we will continue to devote time and resources to make sure that they are given the legal protections they deserve.”

“Service members, especially when deployed overseas, should be able to focus on protecting our county and shouldn’t have to worry about losing their personal property,” said U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy of the Southern District of California. “Congress enacted the SCRA for this purpose, and we will pursue all appropriate remedies to ensure that our service members’ rights are protected. Whether large or small, businesses will be held accountable for violating those rights.”

In addition to seeking damages for the value of the auctioned goods, the SCRA provides for civil monetary penalties of up to $55,000 for the first offense and $110,000 for each subsequent offense. The Department of Justice will also seek injunctive relief.

This lawsuit was filed today in the Southern District of California. This matter resulted from a referral to the Justice Department by the U.S. Navy.

Service members and their dependents who believe that their SCRA rights have been violated should contact the nearest Armed Forces Legal Assistance Program office. Office locations may be found at http://legalassistance.law.af.mil/content/locator.php. Additional information on the Justice Department’s enforcement of the SCRA and other laws protecting service members is available at www.servicemembers.gov.

This matter is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dylan M. Aste and Leslie M. Gardner of the Southern District of California.

The Justice Department, Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today issued a joint compliance note focusing on the voluntary self-disclosure policies that apply to U.S. sanctions, export controls and other national security laws, including recent updates to certain of those policies. Today’s note marks the second collective effort by the three agencies to inform the private sector about enforcement trends and provide guidance to the business community on compliance with U.S. sanctions and export laws.

“American businesses play a vital role in defending our national security because they are gatekeepers for sensitive technologies and key participants in the financial system,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “Responsible companies that come forward as soon as they learn of potential sanctions and export control violations will benefit from the protections of these self-disclosure policies.”

“When it comes to protecting our cutting-edge technology from falling into the wrong hands, industry is our first line of defense,” said Assistant Secretary Matthew S. Axelrod of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement. “As this joint compliance note makes clear, we need companies to tell us when they have potentially violated our rules and offer them concrete benefits for doing so.”

The compliance note describes the voluntary self-disclosure policies of BIS, the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and OFAC, and highlights recent updates related to these policies. Additionally, the compliance note highlights the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN)’s Anti-Money Laundering and Sanctions Whistleblower Program, which incentivizes individuals in the United States and abroad to provide information to the government about violations of U.S. trade and economic sanctions, in addition to violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

“As adversaries leverage increasingly sophisticated efforts to evade international sanctions and export controls, it’s more important than ever to maintain open communication between the public and private sectors,” said Director Andrea Gacki of the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. “By taking advantage of our voluntary self-disclosure policy, companies can both help themselves and help us protect our financial system.”

The note underscores the importance of an effective and robust compliance program. If a company discovers a potential violation, whether it is an administrative or criminal violation, that company must promptly disclose and remediate. Not only does such reporting make the disclosing company potentially eligible for significant mitigation, but it also alerts national security agencies to activities that may pose a threat to the national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government.

The Departments of Justice, Labor (DOL) and Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the launch of Phase II of the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) Initiative aimed at streamlining federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offenses.

Phase II ACTeams will be convened in up to six selected districts around the country, following a competitive, nationwide, interagency selection process. The ACTeams, comprised of federal prosecutors and investigators representing multiple federal enforcement agencies, will implement a joint strategic action plan to develop high-impact federal investigations and prosecutions, vindicate the rights of human trafficking victims, bring traffickers to justice and dismantle human trafficking networks.

“Human traffickers prey on some of the most vulnerable members of our society to exploit them for labor, for sex and for servitude of all kinds,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “Their crimes, appropriately described as modern-day slavery, have no place in a nation that has overcome the scourge of slavery. That’s why the Department of Justice is committed—and I am personally determined—to hold human traffickers accountable, provide support to trafficking survivors, and stand up for the rights and the dignity that they deserve.”

“Labor trafficking affects workers who are vulnerable to exploitation for a number of reasons, who may not know their workplace rights, and may be afraid to raise their voices,” said Secretary Thomas E. Perez of DOL. “The challenges we face as a nation and a government demand unprecedented levels of interagency collaboration. Through these ACTeams, we’re bringing our respective departments’ collective resources and expertise to bear, building a whole even greater than the sum of our individual parts. DOL will remain a vigorous and unfaltering partner during phase II. Together we can ensure workers receive the wages they’ve earned, restore victims’ basic human rights and bring traffickers to justice.”

“The ACTeam Initiative has been an important tool in our collective ability to combat sex trafficking, forced labor and domestic servitude here in the United States,” said Secretary Jeh Johnson of DHS. “This is not a problem that we can afford to ignore which is why, under a banner of shared responsibility and collaboration, the Departments of Justice, Labor and Homeland Security are recommitting ourselves to the fight against human trafficking by expanding the ACTeam Initiative. Through the unified voice of the Blue Campaign, the Department of Homeland Security will continue to combat human trafficking through the guiding philosophy that we are at our best when we work together.”

These departments collaborated to develop the ACTeam Initiative to streamline rapidly expanding human trafficking enforcement efforts, focusing on forced labor, international sex trafficking and sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud and coercion. Project Safe Childhood and the Innocence Lost National Initiative continue to focus on sex trafficking of minors and sexual exploitation of minors.

Drawing together federal prosecutors and federal agents from multiple investigative agencies, ACTeams streamline coordination on the front lines of federal human trafficking investigations and prosecutions, while also enhancing collaboration between front-line enforcement efforts and national human trafficking subject matter experts in the Justice Department’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys and FBI Civil Rights Unit, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Homeland Security Investigations, DOL’s Wage and Hour Division and the Office of the Inspector General. In 2011, the Attorney General and the Secretaries of DHS and DOL announced Phase I of the ACTeam Initiative and the designation of six Phase I Pilot ACTeam sites in Atlanta; El Paso, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Los Angeles; Memphis, Tennessee; and Miami, following a rigorous interagency selection process.

During the ACTeam Phase I period, Fiscal Years 2012-2013, federal human trafficking prosecutions involving forced labor, international sex trafficking and sex trafficking of adults rose by 35 percent nationwide, reflecting strong partnerships among U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Civil Rights Division’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, and non-governmental victim assistance organizations and task forces led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

The ACTeams played a significant role in leading these nationwide advances. In ACTeam Districts, prosecutions of forced labor, international sex trafficking and adult sex trafficking rose even more markedly than they did nationally, due to the force-multiplier effect of interagency commitment to implementing coordinated, joint anti-trafficking strategies and due to advanced training, expertise and operational support provided to the Phase I ACTeams. Comparing federal forced labor, international sex trafficking and adult sex trafficking prosecutions during the ACTeam Phase I period of Fiscal Years 2012-2013, to the pre-Phase I period of Fiscal Years 2010-2011:

Cases filed increased by:

119 percent in ACTeam Districts,
18 percent in non-ACTeam Districts; and
35 percent nationwide.
Defendants charged increased by:

114 percent in ACTeam Districts,
12 percent in non-ACTeam Districts; and
28 percent nationwide.
Defendants convicted increased by:

86 percent in ACTeam Districts,
14 percent in non-ACTeam Districts; and
26 percent nationwide.

I am honored to be joined by FBI Director Chris Wray, National Security Division Assistant Attorney General John Demers, and Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman.

Today, the Department of Justice is announcing a criminal indictment of two computer hackers associated with the Chinese government. The charges include conspiracy to commit computer intrusions against dozens of companies in the United States and around the world. As with all American criminal charges, individual defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

This case is significant because the defendants are accused of targeting and compromising Managed Service Providers, or MSPs. MSPs are firms that other companies trust to store, process, and protect commercial data, including intellectual property and other confidential business information. When hackers gain access to MSPs, they can steal sensitive business information that gives competitors an unfair advantage.

The indictment alleges that defendants worked for a group known to cyber security experts as APT-10. These groups are designated as APTs, or Advanced Persistent Threats, because they use malware to gain access to computer networks and exfiltrate data over an extended period of time.

These defendants allegedly compromised MSP clients in at least a dozen countries. The victims included companies in banking and finance, telecommunications and consumer electronics, medical equipment, packaging, manufacturing, consulting, healthcare, biotechnology, automotive, oil and gas exploration, and mining.

The defendants allegedly committed these crimes in association with a Chinese intelligence service known as the Ministry of State Security.

This is not the first time the Department of Justice has accused Chinese state actors and associates of stealing commercial information. Since the indictment of five uniformed members of the People’s Liberation Army in 2014, our Department has repeatedly cast a spotlight on Chinese state-sponsored criminal activity targeting U.S. companies.

More than 90 percent of the Department’s cases alleging economic espionage over the past seven years involve China. More than two-thirds of the Department’s cases involving thefts of trade secrets are connected to China. In the last few months of this year, our Department has announced charges in three cases alleging crimes committed at the behest of a branch of the Chinese Ministry of State Security.

It is unacceptable that we continue to uncover cybercrime committed by China against other nations. In 2015, China promised to stop stealing trade secrets and other confidential business information through computer hacking “with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.” The activity alleged in this indictment violates the commitment that China made to members of the international community.

We want China to cease illegal cyber activities and honor its commitment to the international community, but the evidence suggests that China may not intend to live up to its promises.

For example, the Chinese industrial policy, known as “Made in China 2025,” lists ten strategic advanced manufacturing industries that the nation has targeted for promotion and development. Many of the companies allegedly targeted recently by Chinese defendants operate in sectors identified by that official policy. Whether through computer hackers operating from China, or Chinese nationals recruited to steal trade secrets from companies in other countries, the goal is the same: to dominate production in strategically important industries by stealing ideas from other nations.

Today’s charges mark an important step in revealing to the world China’s continued practice of stealing commercial data. Responding to that conduct requires a strategic approach to the threats that China poses. That is why the Department of Justice recently announced an initiative to address the full range of threats. One tactic is to increase our enforcement efforts. Another is to conduct foreign investment reviews to protect against China improperly acquiring sensitive information. A third is to find ways to better protect our telecommunications networks.

China stands accused of engaging in criminal activity that victimizes individuals and companies in the United States, violates our laws, and departs from international norms of responsible state behavior. Exposing these actions through the criminal justice system is a valuable tool. Faced with the detailed factual allegations released today, and the corroborating statements of other victimized nations, China will find it difficult to feign ignorance.

America and many allies know what China is doing. We know why they are doing it. And in some cases, we even know which individual people are doing it in association with the Chinese government.

The alleged criminals in this case are named Zhu Hua and Zhang Shilong. We hope the day will come when the defendants face justice under the rule of law in a federal courtroom.

Until then, they and other hackers who steal from our companies for the apparent benefit of Chinese industries should remember: there is no free pass to violate American laws merely because they do so under the protection of a foreign state. The Department of Justice and the FBI will continue to use all available tools to respond to China’s economic aggression and the threat that these actions pose to the prosperity and security of the United States and other nations that respect the rule of law.

Deutsche Bank AG (XETRA: DBKGn.DE / NYSE: DB) has reached a settlement in principle with the Department of Justice in the United States (“DoJ”) regarding civil claims that the DoJ considered in connection with the bank’s issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and related securitization activities between 2005 and 2007. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of US dollar 3.1 billion and to provide US dollar 4.1 billion in consumer relief in the United States. The consumer relief is expected to be primarily in the form of loan modifications and other assistance to homeowners and borrowers, and other similar initiatives to be determined, and delivered over a period of at least five years.

The settlement is subject to the negotiation of definitive documentation, and there can be no assurance that the U.S. Department of Justice and the bank will agree on the final documentation.
In connection with the resolution of this matter, Deutsche Bank expects to record pre-tax charges of approximately US dollar 1.17 billion in the financial results for the fourth quarter as a consequence of the civil monetary penalty. The financial consequences, if any, of the consumer relief are subject to the final terms of the settlement, and are not currently expected to have a material impact on 2016 financial results. The bank will publish its preliminary results for the 2016 financial year as scheduled on February 2, 2017.
About Deutsche Bank

Deutsche Bank provides commercial and investment banking, retail banking, transaction banking and asset and wealth management products and services to corporations, governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized businesses, and private individuals. Deutsche Bank is Germany’s leading bank, with a strong position in Europe and a significant presence in the Americas and Asia Pacific.

Deutsche Bank AG (XETRA: DBKGn.DE / NYSE: DB) confirms that it has commenced negotiations with the Department of Justice in the United States (“DoJ”) with a view to seeking to settle civil claims that the DoJ may consider in connection with the bank’s issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and related securitization activities between 2005 and 2007.

The bank confirms market speculation of an opening position by the DoJ of USD 14 billion and that the DoJ has invited the bank as the next step to submit a counter proposal.

Deutsche Bank has no intent to settle these potential civil claims anywhere near the number cited. The negotiations are only just beginning. The bank expects that they will lead to an outcome similar to those of peer banks which have settled at materially lower amounts.

About Deutsche Bank
Deutsche Bank provides commercial and investment banking, retail banking, transaction banking and asset and wealth management products and services to corporations, governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized businesses, and private individuals. Deutsche Bank is Germany’s leading bank, with a strong position in Europe and a significant presence in the Americas and Asia Pacific.

Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo today announced that Deutsche Bank AG and its New York branch will pay a $425 million fine and hire an independent monitor as part of a consent order entered into with the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) for violations of New York anti-money laundering laws involving a “mirror trading” scheme among the bank’s Moscow, London and New York offices that laundered $10 billion out of Russia. DFS’s investigation found that the bank missed numerous opportunities to detect, investigate and stop the scheme due to extensive compliance failures, allowing the scheme to continue for years. DFS worked closely on the investigation with the Financial Conduct Authority.

“In today’s interconnected financial network, global financial institutions must be ever vigilant in the war against money laundering and other activities that can contribute to cybercrime and international terrorism,” Superintendent Vullo said. “This Russian mirror-trading scheme occurred while the bank was on clear notice of serious and widespread compliance issues dating back a decade. The offsetting trades here lacked economic purpose and could have been used to facilitate money laundering or enable other illicit conduct, and today’s action sends a clear message that DFS will not tolerate such conduct. DFS is pleased to work with the Financial Conduct Authority on this matter. We also appreciate the bank’s forthrightness and timeliness in conducting its internal review and cooperation in our investigation.”

In addition to today’s action, Superintendent Vullo has led DFS enforcement actions for violations of AML laws against Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., which was fined $235 million; Agricultural Bank of China, which was fined $215 million; and Mega Bank of Taiwan, which was fined $185 million.

Today’s action further highlights the importance of DFS’s new risk-based anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulation, which became effective on January 1, 2017. DFS’s regulation requires regulated institutions to maintain programs to monitor and filter transactions for potential BSA/AML violations and prevent transactions with sanctioned entities. It also requires regulated institutions to submit an annual board resolution or senior officer compliance finding confirming the steps taken to ascertain compliance with the regulation. In addition, DFS has proposed a first-in-the-nation cybersecurity regulation, which will be effective March 1, 2017, requiring DFS regulated institutions to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York’s financial services industry.

DFS found that Deutsche Bank and several of its senior managers missed key opportunities to detect, intercept and investigate a long-running mirror-trading scheme facilitated by its Moscow branch and involving New York and London branches. Operating through the equities desk at Deutsche Bank’s Moscow branch, certain companies that were clients of the Moscow equities desk issued orders to purchase Russian blue chip stocks, always paying in rubles. Shortly thereafter, sometimes on the same day, a related counterparty would sell the identical Russian blue chip stock in the same quantity and at the same price through Deutsche Bank’s London branch. The counterparties involved were always closely related, often linked by common beneficial owners, management or agents. The trades were routinely cleared through the bank’s Deutsche Bank Trust Company of the Americas (DBTCA) unit. The selling counterparty was typically registered in an offshore territory and would be paid for its shares in U.S. dollars. At least 12 entities were involved, and none of the trades demonstrated any legitimate economic rationale.

DFS’s investigation uncovered violations that included the following:

The bank has conducted its banking business in an unsafe and unsound manner, failing to maintain an effective and compliant anti-money laundering program. The bank failed to maintain and make available true and accurate books, accounts and records reflecting all transactions and actions.
When contacted by a European financial institution about contradictory information about one of the companies involved in the trading scheme, a senior compliance employee who supervised special investigations at the DBTCA never responded. In addition, the senior compliance employee did not take any steps to investigate the basis for the European Bank’s inquiry, later explaining that the employee had “too many jobs” and “had to deal with many things and had to prioritize.”
The bank’s Know Your Customer (KYC) processes were weak, functioning merely as a checklist with employees mechanically focused on ensuring documentation was collected, rather than shining a critical light on information provided by potential customers. Virtually all of the KYC files for the companies involved in the scheme were insufficient, and a Moscow employee who oversaw the illicit mirror trading was also actively involved in the onboarding and KYC documentation of companies involved in the scheme. In addition, certain staff members experienced hostility and threats on several occasions when it appeared they had not moved quickly enough to facilitate transactions.
The bank failed to accurately rate its country and client risks for money laundering throughout the relevant time period and lacked a global policy benchmarking its risk appetite, resulting in material inconsistencies and no methodology for updating the ratings. Deutsche Bank was not in line with peer banks, which rated Russia as high risk well before Deutsche Bank did in late 2014.
The bank’s anti-financial crime, AML and compliance units were ineffective and understaffed. A senior compliance staffer repeatedly stated that he had to “beg, borrow, and steal” to receive appropriate resources, leaving existing personnel scrambling to perform multiple roles. At one point, an attorney who lacked any compliance background served as the Moscow branch’s head of compliance, head of legal, and as its AML Officer – all at the same time.
Within 60 days of the consent order, the bank must engage an independent monitor, approved by DFS, to conduct a comprehensive review of the bank’s existing BSA/AML compliance programs, policies and procedures that pertain to or affect activities conducted by or through its DBTCA subsidiary and the New York branch.

Within 30 days of the selection of the independent monitor, the bank, DBTCA and the New York branch must submit to DFS for approval an engagement letter than provides for the independent monitor to review and report on, among other things:

The elements of the bank’s corporate governance that contributed to or facilitated the improper conduct and permitted it to go on;
Relevant changes or reforms to corporate governance that the bank has made since the time of the improper conduct and whether those changes or reforms are likely to significantly enhance the bank’s BSA/AML compliance going forward; and
The thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the bank’s current global BSA/AML compliance programs.
In addition, the bank must submit a written action plan to improve and enhance its current global BSA/AML compliance programs that pertain to or affect activities conducted by or through DBTCA and the New York Branch.

The Director-General of UNESCO met with representatives of diverse Iraqi communities and minorities – including from the Shabak, Bahii, Yazidi, kakiee, Sabian Mandaée, Assyrian and Chaldean communities, members and former members of the Kurdistan Parliament and of the Council of Representatives of Iraq.
In opening the meeting, Irina Bokova voiced her grave concern at the systematic persecution of minority communities and the attacks against their cultural and religious heritage – reiterating her call for end to cultural cleansing by extremist groups.

She thanked the representatives present for their courage and commitment to standing up against these attacks, to protect the human rights and dignity of all citizens of Iraq; and expressed UNESCO’s solidarity and readiness to support.

“These are intolerable attempts to destroy the diversity, that is part of the DNA of this country, that testifies to a long history of coexistence and dialogue between peoples and communities, across all cultural and religious lines,” declared the Director-General.

Irina Bokova echoed the statements of the United Nations Secretary General, and his Special Representative, as well as the United Nations Security Council, that these attacks, the systematic and deliberate cleansing of territories, the brutal killings of civilians – all of this stands in direct violation of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Recognizing the urgent need for the persecuted communities to regain a sense of security and normalcy, the Director-General highlighted the importance for these communities of upholding their traditions and cultures, while rebuilding Iraq’s rich social fabric. “I am here to explore with you the way forward – how we can build trust and confidence between all segments of the Iraqi society, how Iraqis can learn to live together in a society respectful of communities’ cultural identity and expressions” she said. “Education, the media and the protection of the wealth of diversity of Iraq’s cultural heritage are fundamental for reconciliation amongst Iraqis. This is why I am here to listen to you”, added the Director-General.

She also noted her high appreciation for the special role of host families and communities, who, despite hardships, are doing everything they can to help, at the risk of being overwhelmed by the crisis.

Discussion with the representatives of minority communities focused on the experience of human rights violations, stigma and discrimination, before and during the current crisis. Many highlighted the tragic lack of trust today, and the deep desire for basic respect and the return to normalcy.

The conditions for minority communities of Iraq’s diverse population remain distressing. It is estimated that out of the 5.2 million people affected during the current crisis, 1.8 million people have been displaced in 2014 alone.

Groups that are most at risk are minorities, some of whom have little or no established links with host communities, or who have been trapped in crisis areas. In addition to being subjected to extremely difficult living conditions, with overcrowding, insufficient sanitation and psychosocial trauma, affected minority groups suffer from persecution with regards to their religious and ethnic backgrounds and infringement on their basic human rights, leading to a loss of connections and ties with their original cultural milieu.

The current crisis has escalated the flight of such minority communities as Yezidis, Christians, Fayli Kurds, Shabaks and Turkomen, while also affecting Shiites and Sunnis.

“As a country traditionally comprised many groups of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, Iraq now stands at a crossroads with serious threats to its social cohesion and unity,” said the Director-General. “We cannot let this happen; we must recognize the vital contribution of the each community to the welfare of society as a whole and the future of Iraq,” she concluded.

CINCINNATI–In a series of rulings this summer, culminating with a ruling issued on September 15th, 2014, the federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that Clio USA’s tooth whitening strip products infringe several P&G patents related to P&G’s Crest Whitestrips® products. The Court also rejected Clio’s arguments that the patents are invalid.

With significant investment, P&G revolutionized the process of at-home whitening with the introduction of Crest Whitestrips® in 2001. Since then, P&G has continued to invest in patented advancements on this award-winning, innovative product. Formulated with the same enamel-safe whitening ingredient dentists use, P&G’s teeth whitening systems can remove 14 years of set-in stains below the enamel surface at a fraction of the cost of in-office treatments.

Due to the success of Crest Whitestrips® in the market, many companies have attempted to copy the patented technology. Each time, P&G has successfully enforced its patents with an out-of-court settlement. Although P&G generally prefers to resolve intellectual property disputes amicably and without litigation, some infringers are unwilling to accept the strength of P&G’s patents without a court decision. In this case, Clio refused to stop selling the infringing products and insisted that the matter be litigated. The Court’s rulings confirm the strength of P&G’s tooth whitening patents and P&G’s belief that Clio’s products unlawfully infringe the patents.

“Consumers win when P&G and other companies introduce truly new-to-the-world innovations that deliver breakthrough benefits,” said Deborah P. Majoras, P&G’s Chief Legal Officer. “The US Patent System was put into place to drive the innovative spirit through legal protection of the inventor’s investment, including the quality assurance and safety support that consumers demand and deserve.” She added, “Companies that want to compete legitimately with our Crest Whitestrips® would not copy our patented technology. But if they do, we will exert our rights as the law allows.”

About Procter & Gamble
P&G serves nearly five billion people around the world with its brands. The Company has one of the strongest portfolios of trusted, quality, leadership brands, including Always®, Ambi Pur®, Ariel®, Bounty®, Charmin®, Crest®, Dawn®, Downy®, Duracell®, Fairy®, Febreze®, Gain®, Gillette®, Head & Shoulders®, Lenor®, Olay®, Oral-B®, Pampers®, Pantene®, SK-II®, Tide®, Vicks®, Wella® and Whisper®. The P&G community includes operations in approximately 70 countries worldwide. Please visit http://www.pg.com for the latest news and in-depth information about P&G and its brands.

The Department of Justice announced today that it will require Gannett Co. Inc., Belo Corp. and Sander Media LLC to divest their interests in KMOV‑TV, a CBS affiliate in St. Louis, in order to proceed with Gannett’s acquisition of Belo, and Sander’s related acquisition of six Belo television stations that Gannett cannot hold under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules. The department said that, without the required divestiture, Gannett would have gained a dominant position in broadcast television spot advertising in the St. Louis area, resulting in higher prices advertisers.

In addition to acquiring the six stations from Belo, Sander will enter into several agreements with Gannett in order to both finance purchasing the stations and facilitate operating the stations. KMOV-TV is one of the six stations Sander would acquire from Belo and would be subject to agreements between Sander and Gannett. These agreements, however, do not include any joint negotiation of retransmission rights in St. Louis. The Gannett-Belo acquisition is valued at approximately $2.2 billion.

The department’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the proposed acquisition and related agreements between Gannett and Sander, including an option for Gannett to assign or acquire the Belo stations sold to Sander, a financing guarantee and a long-term shared services agreement. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the competitive concerns alleged in the lawsuit.

“Gannett’s KSDK‑TV and Belo’s KMOV‑TV compete head-to-head in the sale of broadcast television spot advertising in the St. Louis area, and this rivalry constrains advertising rates,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The full divestiture required by the department will ensure that KMOV-TV will remain a vigorous competitor in St. Louis.”

The department’s complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would lessen competition in broadcast television spot advertising in the St. Louis Designated Market Area (DMA). Even though the two stations would maintain separate sales forces, the various agreements between Gannett and Sander, KMOV‑TV’s new owner, would align the incentives of the two stations. To remedy this harm, the proposed settlement requires Gannett, Belo and Sander to divest all assets primarily used in the operation of KMOV‑TV to an independent purchaser to be approved by the United States. That purchaser will not be permitted to have any agreements with Gannett concerning KMOV-TV that could limit competition with KSDK-TV, including options to acquire or assign, financing agreements and shared services or joint sales agreements.

Gannett, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in McLean, Va., owns and operates 23 broadcast television stations nationwide, 12 of which are in the top 25 markets, as well as numerous newspapers. Gannett’s KSDK‑TV is the NBC affiliate in St. Louis.

Belo, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Dallas, owns and operates 20 broadcast television stations nationwide, nine of which are in the top 25 markets. Belo’s KMOV‑TV is the CBS affiliate in St. Louis.

Sander, a Delaware limited liability company with headquarters in Scottsdale, Ariz., has no current business activity other than preparing to acquire six Belo stations, including KMOV‑TV in St. Louis, as part of the transactions between Gannett, Belo and Sander.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with a competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60‑day comment period to Scott A. Scheele, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60‑day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may approve the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.

This Press Release is courtesy of USDOJ

DuPont (NYSE: DD) and Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced today that they have agreed to settle and dismiss their respective patent infringement lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. The litigation related to claims by Monsanto that DuPont had infringed certain Monsanto seed chipping patents and claims by DuPont that Monsanto had infringed certain DuPont patents related to seed processing. Terms of the settlement are not being disclosed.

According to Monsanto President and Chief Operating Officer Brett Begemann and DuPont Pioneer President Paul E. Schickler, this agreement enables the companies to concentrate their attention on developing new solutions for farmers.

The dismissal of this litigation follows the announcement from DuPont and Monsanto in March 2013 related to a series of technology licensing agreements, as well as dismissal of lawsuits between the companies that also were pending in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. Upon the dismissal of the current litigation, DuPont and Monsanto have no other litigation against each other.

Monsanto (NYSE: MON) is committed to bringing a broad range of solutions to help nourish our growing world. We produce seeds for fruits, vegetables and key crops – such as corn, soybeans and cotton – that help farmers have better harvests while using water and other important resources more efficiently. We work to find sustainable solutions for soil health, help farmers use data to improve farming practices and conserve natural resources, and provide crop protection products to minimize damage from pests and disease. Through programs and partnerships, we collaborate with farmers, researchers, nonprofit organizations, universities and others to help tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges. To learn more about Monsanto, our commitments and our more than 20,000 dedicated employees, please visit: discover.monsanto.com and monsanto.com. Follow our business on Twitter® at twitter.com/MonsantoCo, on the company blog, Beyond the Rows® at monsantoblog.com or subscribe to our News Release RSS Feed.

DuPont (NYSE: DD) has been bringing world-class science and engineering to the global marketplace in the form of innovative products, materials, and services since 1802. The company believes that by collaborating with customers, governments, NGOs, and thought leaders, we can help find solutions to such global challenges as providing enough healthy food for people everywhere, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels, and protecting life and the environment. For additional information about DuPont and its commitment to inclusive innovation, please visit www.dupont.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced that it obtained a consent order requiring the fiduciaries of the Parrot Cellular Employee Stock Ownership Plan to pay $4,181,818 to the plan. The settlement resolves a suit filed in April 2012 after an investigation by the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration found violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The department alleged that plan fiduciaries caused or permitted the ESOP to purchase Parrot Cellular stock for more than fair market value.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, named as defendants Dennis Webb, the principal owner of California-based Entrepreneurial Ventures Inc.; Matthew Fidiam and J. Robert Gallucci, EVI executives and ESOP trustees; and Consulting Fiduciaries Inc., an Illinois company that served as the independent fiduciary for the ESOP during a November 2002 stock purchase. EVI operates Parrot Cellular telephone retail stores and is the sponsor of the worker retirement plan.

“Employee stock ownership plans can have great benefits for workers, but only if they adhere to the laws that govern them,” said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “We are very pleased to have resolved this matter in a way that brings the plan into compliance with the law and benefits the plan’s participants.”

“Officials responsible for employee stock ownership plans are legally required to act prudently and solely in the interests of plan participants when purchasing or selling employer stock,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. “This is true for all fiduciaries of all employee benefit plans covered by ERISA.”

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Consulting Fiduciaries agreed to pay $2 million to the ESOP to settle the allegations. Webb, Fidiam and Gallucci agreed to collectively pay $1.5 million to the ESOP, and Webb agreed to pay an additional $681,818 to the ESOP.

COURTESY: US LABOR DEPARTMENT

EDMONTON, AB, Dec. 2, 2022 – The pace of Canada’s economic recovery has made it hard for employers, including those in the tourism industry, to find the workers they need.

The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, announced that Canada is extending work permits to family members of temporary foreign workers. Expanding the eligibility for work permits to family members accompanying the principal applicant to Canada will help address labour shortages by assisting employers in finding the workers they need.

Prior to this announcement, spouses were only eligible for a work permit if the principal applicant was working in a high-skill occupation. This temporary measure aims to improve the emotional well-being, physical health and financial stability of workers by keeping families together. As a result, it is expected that the worker will better integrate into their overall work environment and community.

Starting in January 2023, through a temporary 2-year measure, Canada will expand eligibility to work in Canada to spouses and working-age children through a phased approach for workers at all skill levels. This would include families of workers in health care, trades and hospitality, for example. As a result of this new approach, it is estimated that family members of more than 200,000 foreign workers could begin working in Canada, offering a greater opportunity for both foreign workers seeking to work in Canada and for employers addressing their labour needs.

The temporary measure will be implemented in 3 phases to ensure its successful implementation:

Phase 1 will enable family members of workers coming to Canada through the high-wage stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program or the International Mobility Program to apply for an open work permit.
Phase 2 aims to expand the measure to the family members of workers from the low-wage stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, following consultations.
Phase 3 will include consultation with agricultural partners and stakeholders to assess operational feasibility for expanding the measure to family members of agricultural workers.
Immigration will continue to play a vital role in addressing Canada’s labour shortages, and the Government of Canada will continue to implement policies aimed at helping employers with their staffing needs across all skill levels.

Quotes:

“Everywhere I go, employers across the country continue to identify a lack of workers as their biggest obstacle. Today’s announcement will help employers find the workers they need to fill their labour gaps by expanding work permits to family members at all skill levels, resulting in family members of over 200,000 foreign workers being able to work in Canada. Our government is going to continue helping employers overcome labour shortages, while also supporting the well-being of workers and uniting their families.”

– The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“Labour is the number 1 challenge facing Canada’s tourism sector as we position ourselves for post-pandemic growth. Today, our government is bringing in innovative, family-based solutions to resolve this issue and help our tourism partners grow to meet the global demand for Canadian experiences from coast to coast to coast.”

– The Honourable Randy Boissonnault, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance

Quick facts:

The measure will be phased in, beginning with the high-wage stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program.
Canada has issued over 645,000 work permits between January and October 2022—nearly 4 times more than the 163,000 issued over the same period in 2021.
Associated links:

An Immigration Plan to Grow the Economy
Strategy to Expand Transitions to Permanent Residence
Follow us:

Facebook.com/CitCanada
Twitter.com/CitImmCanada
Instagram.com/CitImmCanada
SOURCE Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

CONTACT: Contacts for media only: Bahoz Dara Aziz, Press Secretary, Minister’s Office, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Bahoz.DaraAziz@cic.gc.ca; Media Relations, Communications Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, 613-952-1650, media@cic.gc.ca

Pharmaceutical company Endo Health Solutions Inc. and its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Endo) have agreed to pay $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from Endo’s marketing of the prescription drug Lidoderm for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Justice Department announced today. The resolution includes a deferred prosecution agreement and forfeiture totaling $20.8 million and civil false claims settlements with the federal government and the states and the District of Columbia totaling $171.9 million. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Malvern, Pa.

“FDA’s drug approval process is designed to ensure that companies market their products for uses that are proven to be safe and effective,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “We will hold accountable those who circumvent that process in pursuit of financial gain.”

In a criminal information filed today in the Northern District of New York, the government charged that, between 2002 and 2006, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. introduced into interstate commerce Lidoderm that was misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The FDCA requires a company, such as Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA. Once approved, a drug may not be introduced into interstate commerce for unapproved or “off-label” uses until the company receives FDA approval for the new intended uses. During the period of 2002 to 2006, Lidoderm was approved by the FDA only for the relief of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), a complication of shingles. The information alleges that, during the relevant time period, the Lidoderm distributed nationwide by Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. was misbranded because its labeling lacked adequate directions for use in the treatment of non-PHN related pain, including low back pain, diabetic neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome. These uses were intended by Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. but never approved by the FDA. The information further alleges that certain Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. sales managers provided instruction to certain sales representatives concerning how to expand sales conversations with doctors beyond PHN and encouraged promotion of Lidoderm in workers’ compensation clinics.

In a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve the charge, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to health care providers for those unapproved indications. Under the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. will pay a total of $20.8 million in monetary penalties and forfeiture. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. further agreed to implement and maintain a number of enhanced compliance measures, including making publicly available the results of certain clinical trials and requiring an annual review and certification of its compliance efforts by the Chief Executive Officer of its parent company, Endo Health Solutions. The deferred prosecution agreement will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

“The safety and efficacy of drugs must be shown by science, not sales pitches,” said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York Richard S. Hartunian. “Drugs marketed for intended uses not approved by the FDA are misbranded because their labeling lacks adequate directions for those uses. This settlement emphasizes that public health is protected by labeling based on product performance, rather than profitability, and promotes enhanced efforts to ensure compliance with all requirements.”

In addition, Endo agreed to settle its potential civil liability in connection with its marketing of Lidoderm. The government alleged that, from March 1999 through December 2007, Endo caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs, including Medicaid, a jointly funded federal and state program, by promoting Lidoderm for unapproved uses, some of which were not medically accepted indications and, therefore, were not covered by the federal health care programs. Of the $171.9 million Endo has agreed to pay to resolve these civil claims, Endo will pay $137.7 million to the federal government and $34.2 million to the states and the District of Columbia.

“Off-label marketing can undermine the doctor-patient relationship and adversely influence the clear and honest judgment of doctors that their patients rely on and trust,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane D. Memeger. “Pharmaceutical companies have a legal obligation to promote their drugs for only FDA-approved uses. This obligation takes precedence over the company’s bottom line.”

“The settlement announced today demonstrates the government’s continued scrutiny of pharmaceutical companies that interfere with FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations’ New York Field Office Mark Dragonetti. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and jeopardize the public health by engaging in the nationwide distribution of misbranded products.”

“Endo Pharmaceutical enriched themselves at the expense of the public,” said Special Agent in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the Albany Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Patients will search for drug therapies to assist in pain management, and they deserve the right to drugs approved for such use. The FBI will continue to work with our federal partners to investigate companies such as Endo Pharmaceuticals to ensure patients are safe.”

Also as part of the settlement, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. has agreed to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General that requires Endo to implement measures designed to avoid or promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this resolution. Among other things, the CIA requires Endo to implement an internal risk assessment and mitigation program and requires numerous internal and external reviews of promotional and other practices. The CIA also requires key executives and individual board members to sign certifications about compliance, and it requires the company to publicly report information about its financial arrangements with physicians.

“By marketing Lidoderm for uses not covered by federal health care programs, Endo profited at the expense of taxpayers and could have put patients at risk,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “Under our CIA, Endo agrees to promote its products legally, while board members and top executives are specifically held accountable for compliance.”

The civil settlement resolves three lawsuits pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. The actions were filed by Peggy Ryan, a former Lidoderm sales representative, Max Weathersby, another former Lidoderm sales representative and Gursheel S. Dhillon, a physician. The whistleblowers’ share of the settlement has not been determined.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $19 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.4 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The civil settlement was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. The criminal case was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. These matters were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigation, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General Office of Investigations, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General and the Office of Personnel Management Office of Inspector General with assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Counsel to the Inspector General and Office of General Counsel and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

This Press Release is courtesy of www.justice.gov

The President has said that if anyone in the American family feels they have been treated unfairly it is a problem for all Americans. That is why the President is committed to ensuring the criminal justice system is safe, fair, and trustworthy for all Americans. In addition to supporting the enhancement of community policing practices across the Nation, the Budget proposes to prioritize DOJ’s resources on criminals who pose the most serious threats to American citizens’ safety, support Federal reentry programs that help reduce recidivism, and combat violent extremism.

Implementing the Smart on Crime Approach. The Administration continues to advance the DOJ’s Smart on Crime initiative, which was announced in 2013, and designed to promote fundamental criminal justice system reforms that will improve public safety, save money, and ensure the fair enforcement of Federal laws. The strategy leverages prevention and reentry programs to reduce recidivism; focuses prosecutorial resources on the most important law enforcement priorities; ensures that punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders are consistent with the offense; and strengthens protections for vulnerable populations. The Budget supports this strategy by providing additional funding for a dedicated Prevention and Reentry Coordinator in each U.S. Attorney’s office, while also expanding pre-trial diversion programs, such as reentry and drug courts, that ensure better and more just outcomes for low-level offenders who deserve a pre-incarceration second chance. The Budget also includes funding for research to evaluate the efficacy of these programs using metrics that measure the effects of the Smart on Crime initiative.

Community Policing Initiative. The President’s new Community Policing Initiative aims to build and sustain trust between law enforcement and the people they serve. The Budget provides $97 million to expand training and oversight for local law enforcement, increase the use of body-worn cameras, provide additional opportunities for police department reform, and facilitate community and law enforcement engagement in 10 pilot sites, with additional technical assistance and training for dozens of communities and police departments across the Nation.

Reentry Programs. Each year, more than 600,000 people are released from State and Federal prison, while another nine million cycle through local jails. Statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of State prisoners are re-arrested within three years of their release and half are re-incarcerated. High rates of recidivism mean more crime, more victims, and more pressure on an already overburdened criminal justice system. While we must remain vigilant when fighting crime and ensuring the safety of the Nation’s communities, there is a substantial and increasing body of evidence showing that reentry programs reduce recidivism by helping individuals transition to their community after they are released. America’s Federal criminal justice efforts must also be smarter and more efficient by focusing on prevention and reentry, because whenever a recidivist crime is committed, communities are victimized and less safe; burdens on law enforcement are increased; and already-strained resources are further depleted.

The Administration is committed to a comprehensive strategy to contain incarceration costs over the long term by facilitating inmates’ transition into society in order to reduce recidivism rates, increase public safety, and strengthen communities. The Budget reflects these commitments and takes steps to address the cycle of incarceration by investing additional resources in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) reentry programs. These investments include $110 million to increase mental health staff, expand sex offender treatment programs, and provide cognitive behavioral treatment and additional residential reentry center beds. The Budget also provides $5 million to support a new broader reentry program that reaches out to offenders’ children and families to strengthen familial bonds, which are critical for helping inmates transitioning back home, and $20 million to award innovative reentry programs in BOP facilities. In addition, through State and local assistance programs, the Budget nearly doubles the investment in the Second Chance Act Grant program to reduce recidivism and help those exiting the justice system to rejoin their communities and lead productive lives.

The European Commission has found that Infineon, Philips, Samsung and Renesas (at the time a joint venture of Hitachi and Mitshubishi) coordinated their market behaviour for smart card chips in the European Economic Area (EEA), in breach of EU rules that prohibit cartels. The Commission has imposed fines totalling € 138 048 000. The companies colluded through bilateral contacts that took place in the period between September 2003 and September 2005. Renesas benefitted from full immunity under the Commission’s 2006 Leniency Notice for revealing the existence of the cartel to the Commission.

Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy Joaquín Almunia said: “In this digital era smart card chips are used by almost everybody, whether in their mobile phones, bank cards or passports. It is crucial that the companies producing them focus their efforts on how to outperform their competitors by innovating and providing the best products at the most attractive prices. If instead companies choose to collude, at the expense of both customers and end consumers, they should expect sanctions”.

Smart card chips are used in mobile telephone SIM cards, bank cards, identity cards and passports, pay TV cards, and various other applications. Those used in the SIM segment rely mainly on memory, for example to store telephone numbers, while the smart card chips used in other applications also rely on security devices like cryptography in order to ensure data confidentiality.

The companies involved in the cartel colluded through a network of bilateral contacts in order to determine their respective responses to customers’ requests to lower prices. They discussed and exchanged sensitive commercial information on pricing, customers, contract negotiations, production capacity or capacity utilisation and their future market conduct. Collusion of this type breaches Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.

The Commission had initially explored the possibility of settling this case with some of the companies involved under the Commission’s 2008 Settlement Notice. However, in 2012 the Commission decided to discontinue the settlement discussions and to revert to the normal procedure because of the clear lack of progress of these discussions.

Fines
The fines were set on the basis of the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on fines (see IP/06/857 and MEMO/06/256) taking into account the serious nature of the infringement, its geographic scope (i.e. the entire EEA) and the duration of each company’s participation in the infringement.

Under the Commission’s 2006 Leniency Notice, Renesas (and its joint venture parent companies Hitachi and Mitsubishi) received full immunity, as it was the first to reveal the existence of the cartel to the Commission, avoiding a fine of more than € 51 million for its participation in the infringement.

Samsung received a reduction of 30% of its fine for cooperating with the investigation.

Philips has divested its smart card chips business after the infringement, but remains liable for what happened during the period of the infringement.

Background
The Commission started this investigation in 2008 with unannounced inspections (see MEMO/09/1). After the settlement discussions were discontinued in 2012, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections in 2013 (see IP/13/346), giving the companies the opportunity to comment and to be heard before taking today’s decision.

More information on this case will be available under the case number 39574 in the Commission’s public case register on the competition website, once confidentiality issues have been dealt with. For more information on the Commission’s action against cartels, see its cartels website.

Action for damages
Any person or firm affected by anti-competitive behaviour as described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages. The case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation 1/2003) both confirm that in cases before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Even though the Commission has fined the companies concerned, damages may be awarded without these being reduced on account of the Commission fine.

In June 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive that aims at making it easier for victims of anti-competitive practices to obtain such damages (see IP/14/455, IP/13/525 and MEMO/13/531). More information on antitrust damages actions, including a practical guide on how to quantify the harm typically caused by antitrust infringements, the public consultation and a citizens’ summary, is available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/documents.html

Mr President, Honourable Members of the European Parliament,
When I stood before you this time last year, I had a somewhat easier speech to give.
It was plain for all to see that our Union was not in a good state.
Europe was battered and bruised by a year that shook our very foundation.
We only had two choices. Either come together around a positive European agenda or each retreat into our own corners.
Faced with this choice, I argued for unity.
I proposed a positive agenda to help create – as I said last year – a Europe that protects, empowers and defends.

Over the past twelve months, the European Parliament has helped bring this agenda to life. We continue to make progress with each passing day. Just last night you worked to find agreement on trade defence instruments and on doubling our European investment capacity.
I also want to thank the 27 leaders of our Member States. Days after my speech last year, they welcomed my agenda at their summit in Bratislava. In doing so they chose unity. They chose to rally around our common ground.

Together, we showed that Europe can deliver for its citizens when and where it matters.
Ever since, we have been slowly but surely gathering momentum.
It helped that the economic outlook swung in our favour.
We are now in the fifth year of an economic recovery that finally reaches every single Member State.
Growth in the European Union has outstripped that of the United States over the last two years. It now stands above 2% for the Union as a whole and at 2.2% for the euro area.

Unemployment is at a nine year low. Almost 8 million jobs have been created during this mandate so far. With 235 million people at work, more people are in employment in the EU than ever before.
The European Commission cannot take the credit for this alone. Though I am sure that had 8 million jobs been lost, we would have taken the blame.

But Europe’s institutions played their part in helping the wind change.
We can take credit for our European Investment Plan which has triggered €225 billion worth of investment so far. It has granted loans to over 445,000 small firms and more than 270 infrastructure projects.

We can take credit for the fact that, thanks to determined action, European banks once again have the capital firepower to lend to companies so that they can grow and create jobs.
And we can take credit for having brought public deficits down from 6.6% to 1.6%. This is thanks to an intelligent application of the Stability and Growth Pact. We ask for fiscal discipline but are careful not to kill growth. This is in fact working very well across the Union – despite the criticism.
Ten years since crisis struck, Europe’s economy is finally bouncing back.
And with it, our confidence.

Our EU27 leaders, the Parliament and the Commission are putting the Europe back in our Union. Together we are putting the Union back in our Union.
In the last year, we saw all 27 leaders walk up the Capitoline Hill in Rome, one by one, to renew their vows to each other and to our Union.
All of this leads me to believe: the wind is back in Europe’s sails.
We now have a window of opportunity but it will not stay open forever.
Let us make the most of the momentum, catch the wind in our sails.
For this we must do two things:
First, we should stay the course set out last year. We have still 16 months in which real progress can be made by Parliament, Council and Commission. We must use this time to finish what we started in Bratislava and deliver on our positive agenda.
Secondly, we should chart the direction for the future. As Mark Twain wrote, years from now we will be more disappointed by the things we did not do, than by the ones we did. Now is the time to build a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe for 2025.

STAYING COURSE

Mr President, Honourable Members,
As we look to the future, we cannot let ourselves be blown off course.
We set out to complete an Energy Union, a Security Union, a Capital Markets Union, a Banking Union and a Digital Single Market. Together, we have already come a long way.
As the Parliament testified, 80% of the proposals promised at the start of the mandate have already been put forward by the Commission. We must now work together to turn proposals into law, and law into practice.

As ever, there will be a degree of give and take. The Commission’s proposals to reform our Common Asylum System and strengthen rules on the Posting of Workers have caused controversy. Achieving a good result will need all sides to move towards each other. I want to say today: as long as the outcome is the right one for our Union and is fair to all Member States, the Commission will be open to compromise
We are now ready to put the remaining 20% of initiatives on the table by May 2018.
This morning, I sent a Letter of Intent to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani and Prime Minister Jüri Ratas outlining the priorities for the year ahead.
I will not list all our proposals here, but let me mention five which are particularly important.
Firstly, I want us to strengthen our European trade agenda.

Yes, Europe is open for business. But there must be reciprocity. We have to get what we give.
Trade is not something abstract. Trade is about jobs, creating new opportunities for Europe’s businesses big and small. Every additional €1 billion in exports supports 14,000 extra jobs in Europe.
Trade is about exporting our standards, be they social or environmental standards, data protection or food safety requirements.
Europe has always been an attractive place to do business.

With the help of the European Parliament, we have just secured a trade agreement with Canada that will provisionally apply as of next week. We have a political agreement with Japan on a new economic partnership. By the end of the year, we have a good chance of doing the same with Mexico and South American countries.

And today, we are proposing to open trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.
I want all of these agreements to be finalised by the end of this mandate. And I want them negotiated in the fullest transparency.
Open trade must go hand in hand with
open policy making.
The European Parliament will have the final say on all trade agreements. So its Members, like members of national and regional parliaments, must be kept fully informed from day one of the negotiations. The Commission will make sure of this.
From now on, the Commission will publish in full all draft negotiating mandates we propose to the Council.

Citizens have the right to know what the Commission is proposing. Gone are the days of no transparency. Gone are the days of rumours, of incessantly questioning the Commission’s motives.
I call on the Council to do the same when it adopts the final negotiating mandates.
Let me say once and for all: we are not naïve free traders.
Europe must always defend its strategic interests.
This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening. If a foreign, state-owned, company wants to purchase a European harbour, part of our energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate. It is a political responsibility to know what is going on in our own backyard so that we can protect our collective security if needed.

Secondly, I want to make our industry stronger and more competitive.
This is particularly true for our manufacturing base and the 32 million workers that form its backbone. They make the world-class products that give us our edge, like our cars.
I am proud of our car industry. But I am shocked when consumers are knowingly and deliberately misled. I call on the car industry to come clean and make it right. Instead of looking for loopholes, they should be investing in the clean cars of the future.
The new Industrial Policy Strategy we are presenting today will help our industries stay or become the world leader in innovation, digitisation and decarbonisation.

Third: I want Europe to be the leader when it comes to the fight against climate change.
Last year, we set the global rules of the game with the Paris Agreement ratified here, in this very House. Set against the collapse of ambition in the United States, Europe will ensure we make our planet great again. It is the shared heritage of all of humanity.
The Commission will shortly present proposals to reduce the carbon emissions of our transport sector.

Fourth priority for the year ahead: we need to better protect Europeans in the digital age.
In the past three years, we have made progress in keeping Europeans safe online. New rules, put forward by the Commission, will protect our intellectual property, our cultural diversity and our personal data. We have stepped up the fight against terrorist propaganda and radicalisation online. But Europe is still not well equipped when it comes to cyber-attacks.

Cyber-attacks can be more dangerous to the stability of democracies and economies than guns and tanks. Last year alone there were more than 4,000 ransomware attacks per day and 80% of European companies experienced at least one cyber-security incident.
Cyber-attacks know no borders and no one is immune. This is why, today, the Commission is proposing new tools, including a European Cybersecurity Agency, to help defend us against such attacks.
Fifth: migration will stay on our radar.

In spite of the debate and controversy around this topic, we have managed to make solid progress – though admittedly insufficient in many areas.
We are now protecting Europe’s external borders more effectively. Over 1,700 officers from the new European Border and Coast Guard are now helping Member States’ 100,000 national border guards patrol in places like Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Spain. We have common borders but Member States that by geography are the first in line cannot be left alone to protect them. Common borders and common protection must go hand in hand.

We have managed to stem irregular flows of migrants, which were a cause of great anxiety for many. We have reduced irregular arrivals in the Eastern Mediterranean by 97% thanks our agreement with Turkey. And this summer, we managed to get more control over the Central Mediterranean route with arrivals in August down by 81% compared to the same month last year.

In doing so, we have drastically reduced the loss of life in the Mediterranean. Tragically, nearly 2,500 died this year. I will never accept that people are left to die at sea.
I cannot talk about migration without paying strong tribute to Italy for their tireless and noble work. This summer, the Commission again worked closely together with Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and his government to improve the situation, notably by training the Libyan Coast Guard. We will continue to offer strong operational and financial support to Italy. Because Italy is saving Europe’s honour in the Mediterranean.

We must also urgently improve migrants’ living conditions in Libya. I am appalled by the inhumane conditions in detention or reception centres. Europe has a collective responsibility, and the Commission will work in concert with the United Nations to put an end to this scandalous situation that cannot be made to last.

Even if it saddens me to see that solidarity is not yet equally shared across all our Member States, Europe as a whole has continued to show solidarity. Last year alone, our Member States resettled or granted asylum to over 720,000 refugees – three times as much as the United States, Canada and Australia combined. Europe, contrary to what some say, is not a fortress and must never become one. Europe is and must remain the continent of solidarity where those fleeing persecution can find refuge.
I am particularly proud of the young Europeans volunteering to give language courses to Syrian refugees or the thousands more young people who are serving in our new European Solidarity Corps. They are bringing European solidarity to life.

We now need to redouble our efforts. Before the end of the month, the Commission will present a new set of proposals with an emphasis on returns, solidarity with Africa and opening legal pathways.
When it comes to returns: people who have no right to stay in Europe must be returned to their countries of origin. When only 36% of irregular migrants are returned, it is clear we need to significantly step up our work. This is the only way Europe will be able to show solidarity with refugees in real need of protection.

Solidarity cannot be exclusively intra-European. We must also showsolidarity withAfrica. Africa is a noble and young continent, the cradle of humanity. Our €2.7 billion EU-Africa Trust Fund is creating employment opportunities across the continent. The EU budget fronted the bulk of the money, but all our Member States combined have still only contributed €150 million. The Fund is currently reaching its limits. We know the dangers of a lack of funding – in 2015 many migrants headed towards Europe when the UN’s World Food Programme ran out of funds. I call on all Member States to now match their actions with their words and ensure the Africa Trust Fund does not meet the same fate.
We will also work on opening up legal pathways. Irregular migration will only stop if there is a real alternative to perilous journeys. We are close to having resettled 22,000 refugees from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and I support UN High Commissioner Grandi’s call to resettle a further 40,000 refugees from Libya and the surrounding countries.
At the same time, legal migration is a necessity for Europe as an ageing continent. This is why the Commission made proposals to make it easier for skilled migrants to reach Europe with a Blue Card. I would like to thank the Parliament for your support and I call for an ambitious and swift agreement on this important issue.

SETTING SAIL

Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Honourable Members,
I have mentioned just a few of the initiatives we should deliver over the next 16 months. But this alone will not be enough to regain the hearts and minds of Europeans.
Now is the time to chart the direction for the future.

In March, the Commission presented our White Paper on the future of Europe, with five scenarios for what Europe could look like by 2025. These scenarios have been discussed, scrutinised and partly ripped apart. That is good – they were conceived for exactly this purpose. I wanted to launch a process in which Europeans determined their own path and their own future.
The future of Europe cannot be decided by decree. It has to be the result of democratic debate and, ultimately, broad consensus. This House contributed actively, through the three ambitious resolutions on Europe’s future and your participation in many of the more than 2,000 public events that the Commission organised since March.
Now is the time to draw first conclusions from this debate. Time to move from reflection to action. From debate to decision.
Today I would like to present you my view: my own ‘scenario six’, if you will.
This scenario is rooted in decades of first-hand experience. I have lived and worked for the European project my entire life. I have seen good times and bad.
I have sat on many different sides of the table: as a Minister, as Prime Minister, as President of the Eurogroup, and now as President of the Commission. I was there in Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon as our Union evolved and enlarged.
I have always fought for Europe. At times I have suffered with and because of Europe and even despaired for it.
Through thick and thin, I have never lost my love of Europe.
But there is rarely love without pain.
Love for Europe because Europe and the European Union have achieved something unique in this fraying world: peace within and outside of Europe. Prosperity for many if not yet for all.
This is something we have to remember during the European Year of Cultural Heritage. 2018 must be a celebration of cultural diversity.

A UNION OF VALUES

Our values are our compass.
For me, Europe is more than just a single market. More than money, more than the euro. It was always about values.
In my scenario six, there are three principles that must always anchor our Union: freedom, equality and the rule of law.

Europe is first of all a Union of freedom. Freedom from the kind of oppression and dictatorship our continent knows all too well – sadly none more than central and Eastern Europe. Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist – a freedom we too often take for granted. It was on these freedoms that our Union was built. But freedom does not fall from the sky. It must be fought for. In Europe and throughout world.

Second, Europe must be a Union of equality.
Equality between its Members, big and small, East and West, North and South.
Make no mistake, Europe extends from Vigo to Varna. From Spain to Bulgaria.
East to West: Europe must breathe with both lungs. Otherwise our continent will struggle for air.
In a Union of equals, there can be no second class citizens. It is unacceptable that in 2017 there are still children dying of diseases that should long have been eradicated in Europe. Children in Romania or Italy must have the same access to measles vaccines as other children right across Europe. No ifs, no buts. This is why we are working with all Member States to support national vaccination efforts. Avoidable deaths must not occur in Europe.

In a Union of equals, there can be no second class workers. Workers should earn the same pay for the same work in the same place. This is why the Commission proposed new rules on posting of workers. We should make sure that all EU rules on labour mobility are enforced in a fair, simple and effective way by a new European inspection and enforcement body. It seems absurd to have a Banking Authority to police banking standards, but no common Labour Authority for ensuring fairness in our single market. We will create one.

In a Union of equals, there can be no second class consumers. I will not accept that in some parts of Europe,people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical. Slovaks do not deserve less fish in their fish fingers. Hungarians less meat in their meals. Czechs less cacao in their chocolate. EU law outlaws such practices already. We must now equip national authorities with stronger powers to cut out any illegal practices wherever they exist.

Third, in Europe the strength of the law replaced the law of the strong.
The rule of law means that law and justice are upheld by an independent judiciary.
Accepting and respecting a final judgement is what it means to be part of a Union based on the rule of law. Member States gave final jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. The judgements of the Court have to be respected by all. To undermine them, or to undermine the independence of national courts, is to strip citizens of their fundamental rights.
The rule of law is not optional in the European Union. It is a must.
Our Union is not a State but it is a community of law.

A MORE UNITED UNION

Honourable Members,
These three principles must be the foundations on which we build a more united, stronger and more democratic Union.
When we talk about our future, experience tells me new Treaties and new institutions are not the answer people are looking for. They are merely a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. They might mean something to us here in Strasbourg and in Brussels. But they do not mean a lot to anyone else.
I am only interested in institutional reforms if they lead to more efficiency in our Union.
Instead of hiding behind calls for Treaty change – which is in any case inevitable – we must first change the mind-set that for some to win others must lose.

Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.
A more united Union also needs to become more inclusive.

If we want to strengthen the protection of our external borders, then we need to open the Schengen area of free movement to Bulgaria and Romania immediately. We should also allow Croatia to become a full Schengen member once it meets all the criteria.
If we want the euro to unite rather than divide our continent, then it should be more than the currency of a select group of countries. The euro is meant to be the single currency of the European Union as a whole. All but two of our Member States are required and entitled to join the euro once they fulfil all conditions.
Member States that want to join the euro must be able to do so. This is why I am proposing to create a Euro-accession Instrument, offering technical and even financial assistance.

If we want banks to operate under the same rules and under the same supervision across our continent, then we should encourage all Member States to join the Banking Union. Completing the Banking Union is a matter of urgency. We need to reduce the remaining risks in the banking systems of some of our Member States. Banking Union can only function if risk-reduction and risk-sharing go hand in hand. As everyone well knows, this can only be achieved if the conditions, as proposed by the Commission in November 2015, are met. To get access to a common deposit insurance scheme you first need to do your homework.
If we want to avoid social fragmentation and social dumping in Europe, then Member States should agree on the European Pillar of Social Rights as soon as possible and at the latest at the Gothenburg summit in November. National social systems will still remain diverse and separate for a long time. But at the very least, we should work for a European Social Standards Union in which we have a common understanding of what is socially fair.

Europe cannot work if it shuns workers.
If we want more stability in our neighbourhood, then we must maintain a credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans.
It is clear that there will be no further enlargement during the mandate of this Commission and this Parliament. No candidate is ready yet. But thereafter the European Union will be greater than 27 in number. Accession candidates must give the rule of law, justice and fundamental rights utmost priority.
This rules out EU membership for Turkey for the foreseeable future.

Turkey has been taking giant strides away from the European Union for some time.
Journalists belong in newsrooms not in prisons. They belong where freedom of expression reigns.
The call I make to those in power in Turkey is this: Let our journalists go. And not just them either. Stop insulting our Member States by comparing their leaders to fascists and Nazis. Europe is a continent of mature democracies. Insults create roadblocks. Sometimes I get the feeling Turkey is intentionally placing these roadblocks so that it can blame Europe for any breakdown in accession talks.
As for us, we will always keep our hands stretched out towards the great Turkish people and those who are ready to work with us on the basis of our values.

A STRONGER UNION

Honourable Members,
Our Union must also grow stronger.
I want a stronger single market.

When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain areas – if all Heads of State or Government agree to do so.

I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax. Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively.

I want a stronger Economic and Monetary Union.
The euro area is more resilient now than in years past. We now have the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM). I believe the ESM should now progressively graduate into a European Monetary Fund and be firmly anchored in our Union. The Commission will make concrete proposals for this in December.
We need a European Minister of Economy and Finance: a European Minister that promotes and supports structural reforms in our Member States. He or she can build on the work the Commission has been doing since 2015 with our Structural Reform Support Service. The new Minister should coordinate all EU financial instruments that can be deployed when a Member State is in a recession or hit by a fundamental crisis.

I am not calling for a new position just for the sake of it. I am calling for efficiency. The Commissioner for economic and financial affairs – ideally also a Vice-President – should assume the role of Economy and Finance Minister. He or she should also preside the Eurogroup.
The European Economy and Finance Minister must be accountable to the European Parliament.
We do not need parallel structures. We do not need a budget for the Euro area but a strong Euro area budget line within the EU budget.
I am also not fond of the idea of having a separate euro area parliament.
The Parliament of the euro area is the European Parliament.

The European Union must also be stronger in fighting terrorism. In the past three years, we have made real progress. But we still lack the means to act quickly in case of cross-border terrorist threats.
This is why I call for a European intelligence unit that ensures data concerning terrorists and foreign fighters are automatically shared among intelligence services and with the police.
I also see a strong case for tasking the new European Public Prosecutor with prosecuting cross-border terrorist crimes.

I want our Union to become a stronger global actor. In order to have more weight in the world, we must be able to take foreign policy decisions quicker. This is why I want Member States to look at which foreign policy decisions could be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. The Treaty already provides for this, if all Member States agree to do it.

And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.

Last but not least, I want our Union to have a stronger focus on things that matter, building on the work this Commission has already undertaken. We should not meddle in the everyday lives of European citizens by regulating every aspect. We should be big on the big things. We should not march in with a stream of new initiatives or seek ever growing competences. We should give back competences to Member States where it makes sense.

This is why this Commission has been big on big issues and small on the small ones, putting forward less than 25 new initiatives a year where previous Commissions proposed over 100. We have handed back powers where it makes more sense for national governments to deal with things. Thanks to the good work of Commissioner Vestager, we have delegated 90% of state aid decisions to the regional or local level.
To finish the work we started, I am setting up a Subsidiarity and Proportionality Task Force as of this month to take a very critical look at all policy areas to make sure we are only acting where the EU adds value. First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who has a proven track record on better regulation, will head this Task Force. The Timmermans Task Force, which should include Members of this Parliament as well as Members of national Parliaments, should report back in a years’ time.

A MORE DEMOCRATIC UNION

Honourable Members,
Mr President,
Our Union needs to take a democratic leap forward.
I would like to see European political parties start campaigning for the next elections much earlier than in the past. Too often Europe-wide elections have been reduced to nothing more than the sum of national campaigns. European democracy deserves better.

Today, the Commission is proposing new rules on the financing of political parties and foundations. We should not be filling the coffers of anti-European extremists. We should be giving European parties the means to better organise themselves.

I also have sympathy for the idea of having transnational lists – though I am aware this is an idea more than a few of you disagree with. Such lists would help make European Parliament elections more European and more democratic.

I also believe that, over the months to come, we should involve national Parliaments and civil society at national, regional and local level more in the work on the future of Europe. Over the last three years, Members of the Commission have visited national Parliaments more than 650 times. They also debated in more than 300 interactive Citizens’ Dialogues in more than 80 cities and towns across 27 Member States. But we can still do more. This is why I support President Macron’s idea of organising democratic conventions across Europe in 2018.

As the debate gathers pace, I will personally pay particular attention to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 2018. This is the year they will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Those who want to shape the future of our continent should well understand and honour our common history. This includes these four countries – Europe would not be whole without them.

The need to strengthen democracy also has implications for the European Commission. Today, I am sending the European Parliament a new Code of Conduct for Commissioners. The new Code first of all makes clear that Commissioners can be candidates in European Parliament elections under the same conditions as everyone else. The new Code will of course strengthen the integrity requirements for Commissioners both during and after their mandate.

If you want to strengthen European democracy, then you cannot reverse the democratic progress seen with the creation of lead candidates – ‘Spitzenkandidaten’.

I am convinced that any future President will benefit greatly from the unique experience of having campaigned in all quarters of our beautiful continent. To understand the challenges of his or her job and the diversity of our Member States, a future President should have met citizens in the townhalls of Helsinki as well as in the squares of Athens. In my personal experience of such a campaign, it makes you more humble, but also strengthens you during your mandate. And you can face the other leaders in the European Council with the confidence that you have been elected, just as they have. This is good for the balance of our Union.

More democracy means more efficiency. Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
This is nothing against my good friend Donald, with whom I have worked seamlessly together for the past three years. This is nothing against Donald or against me.
Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship.
Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens.

OUR ROADMAP

Honourable members,
The vision of a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe I am outlining today combines elements from all of the scenarios I set out in March.
But our future cannot remain a scenario, a sketch, an idea amongst others.
We have to prepare the Union of tomorrow, today.
This morning I sent a Roadmap to President Tajani, President Tusk as well as to the holders of the rotating Presidencies of the Council between now and March 2019, outlining where we should go from here.

An important element will be the plans the Commission will present in May 2018 for how the future EU budget can match our ambition and make sure we can deliver on everything we promise.
On 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. This will be a very sad and tragic moment. We will always regret it. But we have to respect the will of the British people.
On 30 March 2019, we will be a Union of 27. I suggest that we prepare for this moment well, amongst the 27 and within the EU institutions.
European Parliament elections will take place just a few weeks later, in May 2019. Europeans have a date with democracy. They need to go to the polls with a clear understanding of how the European Union will develop over the years to come.

This is why I call on President Tusk and Romania, the country holding the Presidency in the first half of 2019, to organise a Special Summit in Romania on 30 March 2019. My wish is that this summit be held in the beautiful ancient city of Sibiu, or Hermannstadt as I know it. It should be the moment we come together to take the decisions needed for a more united, stronger and democratic Europe.

My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union where we all stand by our values. Where all Member States firmly respect the rule of law. Where being a full member of the euro area, the Banking Union and the Schengen area has become the norm for all EU Member States. Where we have shored up the foundations of our Economic and Monetary Union so that we can defend our single currency in good times and bad, without having to call on external help. Where our single market will be fairer towards workers from the East and from the West. Where we managed to agree on a strong pillar of social standards. Where profits will be taxed where they were made. Where terrorists have no loopholes to exploit. Where we have agreed on a proper European Defence Union. Where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign.

If our citizens wake up to this Union on 30 March 2019, then they should be able vote in the European Parliament elections a few weeks later with the firm conviction that our Union is a place that works for them.

CONCLUSION

Honourable Members,
Europe was not made to stand still. It must never do so.
Helmut Kohl and Jacques Delors taught me that Europe only moves forward when it is bold. The single market, Schengen and the single currency were all written off as pipe dreams before they happened. And yet these three ambitious projects are now a reality.
I hear those who say we should not rock the boat now that things have started to get better.
But now is not the time to err on the side of caution.
We started to fix the roof. But we must complete the job now that the sun is shining and whilst it still is.
Because when the next clouds appear on the horizon – and they will – it will be too late.
So let’s throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the harbour.
And catch the trade winds in our sails.

On 12 September 2018, on the occasion of his State of the Union Address, the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, presented three new and ambitious proposals to ensure full EU solidarity on migration and better protection of Europe’s external borders. Particularly, the amended proposal for the reinforcement of the EU Asylum Agency, aims to ensure that Member States can rely on full EU Operational Support at all times.

The amended Commission’s proposal will further equip the future EU Asylum Agency with the necessary mandate, tools and financial means needed to provide a rapid and full service to Member States throughout the asylum procedure. The proposal includes:

Full operational support on asylum procedures: The Agency’s asylum support teams will be available to provide the full range of support activities, including by carrying out the entire administrative stage of the asylum procedure;
Joint EU migration management teams will support Member States when needed and requested, including in hotspots and controlled centres. Composed of experts from the European Border and Coast Guard, the EU Agency for Asylum and Europol, the teams will be coordinated by the Commission. Under the authority of the host Member State, they will be able to carry out all tasks necessary to receive arrivals, distinguish between persons in need of protection and those not and carry out asylum and return procedures;
Increased financial means: To ensure the Agency can carry out its increased tasks, the Commission proposes a budget of €321 million for the period 2019-2020 and €1.25 billion for the period 2021-2027.
The reinforced Agency will be able to assist not only in times of increased migratory pressure, but at any point Member State may require it, throughout the asylum procedure as well as during procedures under the Dublin Regulation. Under the new proposal, the Agency’s new tasks will include:

Greater technical and operational assistance which the Agency would be able to finance itself;
Administrative support in carrying out the entire, or parts of the, administrative procedure for international protection as well as the procedure under the Dublin system. The Agency will also be able to offer assistance in the appeal stage, by providing legal research and analysis or producing reports at the request of courts or tribunals;
Deployment of Migration Management Support Teams, including in hotspots and controlled centres. The teams will include the Agency experts as well as staff from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Europol and other EU Agencies.
In addition, today’s proposal modifies the nomination process for the Deputy Executive Director of the Agency.

The original proposal from May 2016 aims to transform the existing European Asylum Support Office into a fully-fledged European Union Agency for Asylum with an enhanced mandate and considerably expanded tasks. The Agency will be able to offer greater support to Member States in times of increased migratory pressure, including through a rapid deployment of asylum experts.

Keeping the unity of the European Union is the biggest challenge for all of us and so it is the key objective of my mandate. It is in this spirit that I put forward a proposal for a new settlement of the United Kingdom within the EU. To my mind it goes really far in addressing all the concerns raised by Prime Minister Cameron. The line I did not cross, however, were the principles on which the European project is founded.

I deeply believe that our community of interests is much stronger than what divides us. To be, or not to be together, that is the question which must be answered not only by the British people in a referendum, but also by the other 27 members of the EU in the next two weeks.

This has been a difficult process and there are still challenging negotiations ahead. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I am convinced that the proposal is a good basis for a compromise. It could not have been drafted without the close and good cooperation of the European Commission. In order to facilitate this process the Commission also made political declarations that are included in this package.

Let me briefly refer to all the four baskets of the proposal.

On economic governance, the draft Decision of the Heads sets out principles to ensure mutual respect between the Member States taking part in further deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union and those which do not. By doing that we can pave the way for the further integration within the euro area while safeguarding the rights and competences of non-participating Member States.

The respect for these principles is backed up by a draft Decision establishing a mechanism that while giving necessary reassurances on the concerns of non-euro area Member States, cannot constitute a veto nor delay urgent decisions. The exact conditions for triggering this mechanism remain to be further discussed.

On competitiveness, the draft Decision of the Heads, together with a more detailed European Council Declaration and a draft Commission Declaration, will set out our commitment to increase efforts to enhance competitiveness. We will regularly assess progress in simplifying legislation and reducing burden on business so that red tape is cut.

On sovereignty, the proposed Decision of the Heads recognises that in light of the United Kingdom’s special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration. It also reinforces respect for subsidiarity, and I propose that the Member States discontinue the consideration of a draft legislative act where a number of national parliaments object to it on the grounds of subsidiarity, unless the concerns raised can be accommodated. The importance of respecting the opt-out regime of Protocols 21 and 22, as well as national security responsibilities is also underlined.

On social benefits and free movement, we need to fully respect the current treaties, in particular the principles of freedom of movement and non-discrimination. Therefore the proposed solution to address the UK concerns builds on the clarification of the interpretation of current rules, including a draft Commission Declaration on a number of issues relating to better fighting abuse of free movement.

The draft Decision of the Heads notes, in particular, the Commission’s intention to propose changes to EU legislation as regards the export of child benefits and the creation of a safeguard mechanism to respond to exceptional situations of inflow of workers from other Member States. A draft Commission Declaration also relates to this mechanism. This approach, as well as the exact duration of the application of such a mechanism need to be further discussed at our level.

Most of the substance of this proposal takes the form of a legally binding Decision of the Heads of State or Governments. We should also be prepared to discuss the possible incorporation of the substance of a few elements covered by the Decision into the Treaties at the time of their next revision.

Our Sherpas and Permanent Representatives will meet on Friday this week to have the first discussion of the proposal. The clear objective is to have an agreement of all 28 at the February European Council. To succeed we will all need to compromise. To fail would be compromising our common future.

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council

President Juncker stresses the need for Europe to become more sovereign so as to be able to play a role in shaping global affairs

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker today delivered his 2018 State of the Union Address, before the Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, presenting his priorities for the year ahead and outlining his vision for how the European Union can continue to build a ‘More United, Stronger and More Democratic Union’, which was the theme of his 2017 Address.

Against the backdrop of an ever more uncertain world, he stressed the need for Europe to become more sovereign so as to be able to play a role in shaping global affairs.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said today: “The geopolitical situation makes this Europe’s hour: the time for European sovereignty has come. It is time Europe took its destiny into its own hands. This belief that “united we stand taller” is the very essence of what it means to be part of the European Union. Sharing sovereignty – when and where needed – makes each of our nation states stronger.”

President Juncker’s speech in the European Parliament was accompanied by the adoption of 18 concrete initiatives by the European Commission on migration and borders, security, free and secure elections, the European Union’s partnership with Africa and the EU as a global actor, putting words immediately into action. These proposals are intended to help deliver positive results for citizens by the time of the Sibiu Summit in May 2019 and ahead of the 2019 European elections.

Key proposals of the 2018 State of the Union Address
Security: New rules to get terrorist content off the web; measures for securing free and fair European elections; A reinforced European Public Prosecutor’s Office to fight cross-border terrorism; and initiatives to invest in cybersecurity;
Migration and border reform: A reinforced European Union Agency for Asylum; A fully equipped European Border and Coast Guard; Stronger EU rules on return; Legal migration;
Africa and External Investment: A new Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Investment and Jobs; A more efficient financial architecture for investment outside the EU;
Common Foreign and Security Policy: Improving the efficiency of decision-making;
Seasonal clock changes: Commission proposes to put an end to seasonal clock changes;
Anti-Money Laundering: Stronger anti-money laundering supervision for a stable banking and financial sector.

Multiannual financial framework
The European Council welcomed the work done under the Romanian Presidency and took note of the various elements of the MFF package. It called on Finland’s Presidency to pursue the work and to develop the Negotiating Box. On that basis the European Council will hold an exchange of views in October 2019, aiming for an agreement before the end of the year.

Climate change
The European Council emphasises the importance of the United Nations Secretary General’s Climate Action Summit in September for stepping up global climate action so as to achieve the objective of the Paris Agreement, including by pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It welcomes the active involvement of Member States and the Commission in the preparations.

Following the sectoral discussions held over recent months, the European Council invites the Council and the Commission to advance work on the conditions, the incentives and the enabling framework to be put in place so as to ensure a transition to a climate-neutral EU in line with the Paris Agreement [1] that will preserve European competitiveness, be just and socially balanced, take account of Member States’ national circumstances and respect their right to decide on their own energy mix, while building on the measures already agreed to achieve the 2030 reduction target. The European Council will finalise its guidance before the end of the year with a view to the adoption and submission of the EU’s long-term strategy to the UNFCCC in early 2020. In this context, the European Council invites the European Investment Bank to step up its activities in support of climate action.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to scaling up the mobilisation of international climate finance from a wide variety of private and public sources and to working towards a timely, well-managed and successful replenishment process for the Green Climate Fund.

Disinformation and hybrid threats
Further to the Presidency report and the contributions from the Commission and the High Representative on lessons learnt with regard to disinformation and securing free and fair elections, the European Council calls for sustained efforts to raise awareness, increase preparedness and strengthen the resilience of our democracies to disinformation. It welcomes the Commission’s intention to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the implementation of commitments undertaken by online platforms and other signatories under the Code of Practice. The evolving nature of the threats and the growing risk of malicious interference and online manipulation associated with the development of Artificial Intelligence and data-gathering techniques require continuous assessment and an appropriate response.

The EU must ensure a coordinated response to hybrid and cyber threats and strengthen its cooperation with relevant international actors. The European Council welcomes the adoption of a new framework for targeted restrictive measures, and the work on coordinated attribution at EU level in the context of the cyber diplomacy toolbox, to better deter and respond to cyber-attacks. It invites the EU institutions, together with the Member States, to work on measures to enhance the resilience and improve the security culture of the EU against cyber and hybrid threats from outside the EU, and to better protect the EU’s information and communication networks, and its decision-making processes, from malicious activities of all kinds.

External relations
8. On the occasion of the Eastern Partnership’s 10th anniversary, the European Council reaffirms the importance of this strategic partnership and invites the Commission and the High Representative to evaluate existing instruments and measures and, on the basis of appropriate consultations, to present by early 2020, with a view to the next Eastern Partnership Summit, a further set of long-term policy objectives.

The European Council welcomes the peaceful transfer of power in the Republic of Moldova and invites the European Commission and the High Representative to work on a set of concrete measures to support the Republic of Moldova, based on its sustained implementation of reforms under the Association Agreement / DCFTA.

The European Council underlines the crucial importance of the EU’s strategic partnership with Africa. We are committed to developing it further with a shared ambition to face together common and global challenges.

The stability, security and prosperity of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean are of crucial importance for the EU. In this context, peace and long-term stability in Libya are a common priority. The EU reiterates its support for the UN-led process for the cessation of hostilities and an inclusive political solution.

The European Council welcomes the renewed impetus in EU-Morocco relations and looks forward to the upcoming EU-Morocco Association Council.

The European Council reiterates its call on Russia to release the captured Ukrainian sailors unconditionally, return the seized vessels and ensure free passage of all ships through the Kerch Straits, in accordance with international law.

The European Council expresses its utmost concern about the Russian presidential decree of 24 April, enabling the simplified issuing of passports in certain areas of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which runs counter to the spirit and the objectives of the Minsk agreements.

The European Council will continue to monitor the situation in eastern Ukraine and stands ready to consider further options, including non-recognition of Russian passports issued in contradiction to the Minsk agreements, in close coordination with its international partners. The European Council calls for an urgent resumption of negotiating efforts with a view to the implementation of the Minsk agreements and for measures aimed at rebuilding confidence among the parties.

17 July will mark five years since the downing of flight MH17, which claimed 298 lives. The European Council reiterates its full support for all efforts to establish truth, justice and accountability for the victims and their next of kin, in accordance with UNSC Resolution 2166. In this context, it welcomes the announcement by the Joint Investigation Team on 19 June 2019 that criminal charges will be brought in the Netherlands against four individuals, calls on Russia to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, and expresses its full confidence in the independence and professionalism of the legal procedures that lie ahead.

The European Council recalls and reaffirms previous Council and European Council conclusions, including the European Council conclusions of 22 March 2018 strongly condemning Turkey’s continued illegal actions in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea. The European Council expresses serious concerns over Turkey’s current illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and deplores that Turkey has not yet responded to the EU’s repeated calls to cease such activities. The European Council underlines the serious immediate negative impact that such illegal actions have across the range of EU-Turkey relations. The European Council calls on Turkey to show restraint, respect the sovereign rights of Cyprus and refrain from any such actions. The European Council endorses the invitation to the Commission and the EEAS to submit options for appropriate measures without delay, including targeted measures. The EU will continue to closely monitor developments and stands ready to respond appropriately and in full solidarity with Cyprus. The European Council will remain seized of the matter and will revert accordingly.

Other items
The European Council endorses the conclusions on enlargement and stabilisation and association process adopted by the Council on 18 June 2019.

In the context of the European Semester, the European Council held a discussion on the basis of a horizontal report on Country-Specific Recommendations.

For a large majority of Member States, climate neutrality must be achieved by 2050.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Yesterday, hundreds of Americans amended their Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit against Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Danske Bank, Wall Street Exchange, and Placid Express, which stand accused of supporting a campaign of terrorism in Afghanistan led by al-Qaeda and carried out by the Taliban.

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in Wildman, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Case 1:21-cv-04400 (E.D.N.Y.), followed a multi-year investigation by the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Sparacino PLLC and came less than six weeks after Sparacino PLLC helped secure a comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit against Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GE Healthcare, AstraZeneca, and Roche, on behalf of more than 1,200 Americans, in Atchley et al. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02136 (D.D.C.); Sparacino serves as lead investigative counsel in both cases and followed the same investigative method and complaint-drafting approach in each.

In the Wildman amended complaint, filed yesterday, 487 Americans, including 115 Gold Star families and dozens of severely injured veterans, accuse Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Danske Bank, Placid Express, and Wall Street Exchange of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act by knowingly financing al-Qaeda and its affiliates from 2001 through 2016.

After 9/11, Osama bin Laden organized al-Qaeda’s long-standing affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan into an anti-American jihadist alliance that was dedicated to killing Americans in Afghanistan. Through what the U.S. government described as al-Qaeda’s “Syndicate” of terrorism, al-Qaeda planned, authorized, and often jointly committed attacks throughout Afghanistan alongside its allies the Taliban, including the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-E-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and D-Company.

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Danske Bank, Placid Express, and Wall Street Exchange aided these terrorists by knowingly serving them as what people in the financial industry call a “Laundromat”: a bank or money remitter that operates as a criminal enterprise by knowingly profiting from transactions that help terrorists.

As alleged, each defendant pursued longstanding “Laundromat” schemes to maximize profits by knowingly helping al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and their allies raise, manage, secure, transfer, and deploy their illicit money. The allegations in the Complaint show that these schemes violated U.S. law and collectively caused hundreds of millions of U.S. Dollars to flow from American financial institutions to al-Qaeda and its allies from 2001 through 2016.

The plaintiffs are Americans who were severely physically injured, or whose loved ones were killed or severely physically injured, in Afghanistan by terrorist attacks from 2011 through 2016 that were planned, authorized, and often jointly committed, by al-Qaeda in alliance with its long-standing affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the Taliban and its Haqqani Network.

As it did in the Atchley case, Sparacino PLLC’s attorneys and investigators exhaustively reviewed the facts prior to filing the complaint, continued investigating thereafter, and obtained nonpublic data that confirmed the core allegation—a full copy of a confidential “final” investigative summary memorandum prepared by an elite western law enforcement agency that memorialized, among other things, how one or more member of a key fundraising cell at issue “generally confessed” to the scheme and “cooperat[ed] with the investigation.”

“As alleged, Deutsche Bank knowingly aided violent terrorist sociopaths known to target Americans,” said Mr. Sparacino, “and, until 2017, Deutsche Bank made a choice to institutionally profit by aiding terroristic violence and did not care if its customers were known to rape girls for sport (as Jeffrey Epstein did while Deutsche served him), coerce enslaved boys to fight and kill Christians and Jews (as Iran did while Deutsche served its terror fronts), or kill and maim thousands of American, British, and German servicemembers and civilians (as al-Qaeda did while Deutsche laundered its money), as long as Deutsche’s profits kept pouring in.”

“For decades, Deutsche Bank and Standard Chartered Bank have acted as if they were above the law. In the United States, however, no one is above the law, and Plaintiffs will do everything they can to hold Deutsche Bank and Standard Chartered Bank accountable,” said Mr. Sparacino.

“But this case is about much more than Deutsche and Standard Chartered. Given the unprecedented nature, and breadth, of the terrorist finance schemes alleged in Wildman, this case is the most important Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuit ever filed against any bank, and the world can assume that Plaintiffs will be served by an expanded legal team that is led by an elite American law firm widely known as one of the preeminent trial powerhouses in the United States befitting the stakes of this case for the Americans in it who lost so much,” said Mr. Sparacino.

Plaintiffs’ case is captioned Wildman, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Case 1:21-cv-04400 (E.D.N.Y. Compl. Filed Aug. 5, 2021). The full Amended Complaint is available https://afghanistan.terrorismcase.com/afghanistan-documents/wildman-amended-complaint/.

Media Contact: TerrorismCaseMedia@sparacinopllc.com

SOURCE Sparacino PLLC

A southwest suburban Bolingbrook man was arrested Saturday night for allegedly attempting to travel overseas to join a foreign terrorist organization operating inside Iraq and Syria, federal law enforcement officials announced today. The defendant, Mohammed Hamzah Khan, 19, a U.S. citizen, was charged with attempting to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Khan was taken into custody without incident at O’Hare International Airport by members of the Chicago FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force before he attempted to fly to Vienna, Austria, on his way to Istanbul, Turkey.

Khan was charged in a criminal complaint filed today in U.S. District Court with one count of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. He appeared this morning in U.S. District Court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Cox, and remains in federal custody pending a detention hearing at 10:30 a.m. Thursday.

According to the complaint affidavit, a roundtrip ticket was purchased for Khan on Sept. 26 to travel from Chicago to Istanbul, departing on Saturday, and returning later this week.

Law enforcement agents observed Khan passing through the security screening checkpoint Saturday afternoon at O’Hare’s international terminal. Federal agents then executed a search warrant at Khan’s residence and recovered multiple handwritten documents that appeared to be drafted by Khan and/or others, which expressed support for ISIL, the affidavit alleges. Some of those documents, including travel plans and materials referencing ISIL and jihad, are described in the complaint affidavit.

Khan was initially approached by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and was later interviewed later by FBI agents at the airport.

Attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The JTTF is comprised of Special Agents of the FBI, officers of the Chicago Police Department, and representatives from an additional 20 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The Justice Department’s National Security Division assisted in the investigation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Illinois State Police also provided significant assistance.

The arrest and complaint were announced by Zachary T. Fardon, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert J. Holley, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation is continuing, they said.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew Hiller and Angel Krull.

The public is reminded that a complaint contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation today released the 2017 Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, a part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The report, which covers January-June 2017, suggests that the violent crime increases that occurred in 2015 and 2016 may have begun to level off. The number of violent crimes decreased by 0.8 percent nationwide in the first half of 2017 when compared with the same period in 2016. The nationwide violent crime rate (the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.S.) increased by a total of nearly 7 percent during 2015 and 2016, (3.3 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively), the largest two increases in a quarter of a century.

“When President Trump took office, he ordered the Department of Justice to prioritize the reduction of violent crime, and that is what we have done every day since,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. “Last year, we charged more defendants with violent crime offenses than in any year in decades. We convicted hundreds of human traffickers, arrested thousands of violent gang members, and charged hundreds of people suspected of contributing to our opioid abuse epidemic. Working with our state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners, we are making a difference and protecting our communities. These data are encouraging, because it is essential that drastic increases in violent crime not become the new normal. We are dedicated to ensuring they do not.”

The data released by the FBI today also show that murders increased by 1.5 percent nationwide during the first six months of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016. This suggests a significant leveling off of the previous increase. In the first half of 2016, murders increased by 5.2 percent. Other categories of violent crime, including rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, all decreased in the first half of 2017 (by 2.4 percent, 2.2 percent, and 0.1 percent, respectively). All three categories increased during the same period in 2016. The FBI’s 2017 Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report is based on information received by the FBI from 13,033 law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced a settlement with American Express Centurion Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah, (Bank) for unfair and deceptive marketing practices related to credit card “add-on products,” in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.

This action results from a review of the Bank’s credit card products by the FDIC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As part of the settlement, the Bank stipulated to the issuance of a Consent Order, Order for Restitution, and Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty (collectively, FDIC Order). The FDIC Order requires the Bank to pay a civil money penalty (CMP) of $3.6 million. The CFPB is also taking a parallel enforcement action against the Bank for the same practices and will assess a separate CMP of $3.6 million. Together, the FDIC and CFPB will require restitution of no less than $40.9 million to harmed consumers.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the CFPB also announced actions against other American Express affiliated institutions for the same unfair and deceptive practices identified in those institutions. Collectively, these actions will result in restitution of approximately $59.5 million to more than 335,000 consumers.

The FDIC determined that the Bank violated federal law prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices by, among other things:
• Misrepresenting to consumers the benefits and costs of its “Account Protector” add-on product. Consumers were led to believe that the benefits would continue for up to 24 months in the event of a qualifying life event, when in fact the majority of events had benefit periods of one, two, or three months. Consumers were also led to believe that if they purchased the product their monthly minimum payment would be cancelled in the event of a qualifying event. However, the benefit payment was limited to 2.5% of the consumer’s outstanding balance, up to $500, which could be less than the minimum monthly payment.
• Misrepresenting the terms and conditions of the “Lost Wallet” add-on product through telemarketing calls conducted in Spanish to consumers in Puerto Rico. American Express did not provide uniform Spanish language scripts to its customer service representatives for enrollment calls, and all written materials provided to consumers were in English.
• Consumers were not informed during telemarketing calls or during the enrollment process for identity theft products that two steps were necessary to fully utilize credit monitoring and public records monitoring benefits. The second step was not completed by 85 % of consumers. These consumers were thus unfairly billed for benefits they did not receive.

In addition, the Order requires the Bank to take affirmative steps to correct its marketing and billing practices, and to ensure that all of the add-on products offered by the Bank are marketed and administered in compliance with applicable laws.

This Press Release is courtesy of fdic.gov

A federal court has permanently barred Kathleen Sims-Crawford and KSC Business Support Services Inc. from preparing federal tax returns for others, the Justice Department announced today. The civil injunction order, entered by Judge John J. Tharp Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, also prohibits Sims-Crawford from owning and managing a tax return preparation business. Sims-Crawford consented to the order.

According to the government complaint, Sims-Crawford, a Chicago resident who owns and operates KSC Business Support Services, Inc., prepared returns that reported false or inflated claims for the Earned Income Credit, fabricated or inflated business losses, and false rental income and/or expenses. The complaint alleged that these returns fraudulently reduced customers’ reported tax liabilities and helped taxpayers to obtain refunds to which they were not entitled. This conduct allegedly caused the United States hundreds of thousands of dollars in harm.

The IRS has a list of steps on its website that you can take and ten tips for choosing a tax preparer. Each year, the IRS releases the top 12 scams, known as the Dirty Dozen. Return preparer fraud is one of the IRS’s Dirty Dozen Tax Scams for 2018, and taxpayers seeking a return preparer should remain vigilant. The IRS has some information on its website for choosing a return preparer and has launched a free directory of federal tax preparers.

In the past decade, the Tax Division has obtained injunctions against hundreds of unscrupulous tax preparers. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department’s website. An alphabetical listing of persons enjoined from preparing returns and promoting tax schemes can be found on this page. If you believe that one of the enjoined persons or businesses may be violating an injunction, please contact the Tax Division at tax.mail@usdoj.gov (link sends e-mail) with details.

FedEx is innocent of the charges brought today by the Department of Justice. We will plead not guilty. We will defend against this attack on the integrity and good name of FedEx and its employees.

FedEx has a 42-year history of close cooperation with law enforcement agencies. We’re proud to say that we have partnered with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, DEA, and other federal, state and local law enforcement teams around the world to help stop illegal drug activity and bring criminals to justice. These efforts include providing assistance to the DEA in combatting rogue internet pharmacies. We have repeatedly requested that the government provide us a list of online pharmacies engaging in illegal activity. Whenever DEA provides us a list of pharmacies engaging in illegal activity, we will turn off shipping for those companies immediately. So far the government has declined to provide such a list.

FedEx transports more than 10 million packages a day. The privacy of our customers is essential to the core of our business. This privacy is now at risk, based on the charges by the Department of Justice related to the transportation of prescription medications.

We want to be clear what’s at stake here: the government is suggesting that FedEx assume criminal responsibility for the legality of the contents of the millions of packages that we pick up and deliver every day. We are a transportation company – we are not law enforcement. We have no interest in violating the privacy of our customers. We continue to stand ready and willing to support and assist law enforcement. We cannot, however, do the job of law enforcement ourselves.

FIFA, WHO, and the European Commission have joined forces, to launch the #SafeHome campaign to support women and children at risk of domestic violence. The campaign is a joint response from the three institutions to the recent spikes in reports of domestic violence as stay-at-home measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have put women and children experiencing abuse at greater risk.

Almost one in three women worldwide experience physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by someone else in their lifetime. In a majority of cases, that violence is committed by a partner in their home – indeed, up to 38% of all murders of women are committed by an intimate partner. It is also estimated that one billion children aged between two and seventeen years (or half the world’s children) have experienced physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect in the past year.

There are many reasons why people perpetrate domestic violence, including gender inequality and social norms that condone violence, childhood experiences of abuse or exposure to violence and coercive control growing up. Harmful use of alcohol can also trigger violence. Stressful situations, such as those being experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and economic instability, exacerbate the risk. Moreover, the current distancing measures in place in many countries make it harder for women and children to reach out to family, friends and health workers who could otherwise provide support and protection.

“Just as physical, sexual or psychological violence has no place in football, it has no place in the home.” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization. “We are so pleased that our partners today are joining us to draw attention to this critical issue. As people are isolated at home because of COVID-19, the risks of domestic violence have tragically been exacerbated.”.

“Together with the World Health Organization and the European Commission, we are asking the football community to raise awareness to this intolerable situation that threatens particularly women and children in their own home, a place where they should feel happy, safe and secure,” said FIFA President Gianni Infantino. “We cannot stay silent on this issue that negatively affects so many people. Violence has no place in homes, just as it has no place in sports. Football has the power to relay important social messages, and through the #SafeHome campaign, we want to ensure that those people experiencing violence have access to the necessary support services they need.”

“Violence has no place in our societies,” said Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth. “Women’s rights are human rights and should be protected. Often abused women and children are afraid to talk because of fear or shame. This ‘window’ to speak-up and seek help is, during confinement, even more restricted. As a matter of fact , in some countries, we have seen an increase in reports of domestic violence since the outbreak of COVID-19. It is our responsibility as a society, as institutions to speak up for these women. To give them trust and support them. This is the purpose of this joint campaign which I am honoured to be part of.”

“We call upon our member associations to actively publish details of national or local helplines and support services that can help victims and anyone feeling threatened by violence in their locality,” added the FIFA President. “We also call upon our members to review their own safeguarding measures using the FIFA Guardians toolkit to ensure that football is fun and safe for everyone in our game, especially the youngest members of the football family.”

The five-part video awareness campaign features 15 past and present footballers – Álvaro Arbeloa, Rosana Augusto, Vítor Baía, Khalilou Fadiga, Matthias Ginter, David James, Annike Krahn, Marco Materazzi, Milagros Menéndez, Noemi Pascotto, Graham Potter, Mikaël Silvestre, Kelly Smith, Óliver Torres and Clementine Touré – who have stressed their support to addressing this critical issue. The campaign is being published on various FIFA digital channels, with #SafeHome also being supported with multimedia toolkits for the 211 FIFA member associations and for various media agencies to help facilitate additional localisation and to further amplify the message worldwide.

WHO, the United Nations’ specialised health agency, and FIFA, football’s world governing body, collaborate closely to promote healthy lifestyles, which includes being free of violence, through football globally. The two organisations jointly launched the “Pass the message to kick out coronavirus” campaign in March 2020 to share advice on effective measures to protect people from COVID-19. This was followed by the #BeActive campaign in April 2020 to encourage people to stay healthy at home during the pandemic.

Factsheet
According to WHO, violence is a pervasive public health and human rights problem around the world. It affects women, men, boys and girls in all countries and cuts across boundaries of age, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, culture and wealth. Statistically, women and children (both boys and girls) are most affected by violence in the home and it is often perpetrated by men they know and trust.

Data (Source: WHO and others)

Almost one in three women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence, not including sexual harassment, by any perpetrator
Globally, 30% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime
Globally up to 38% of murders of women are committed by intimate partners
Adolescent girls, young women, women belonging to ethnic and other minorities, transwomen, and women with disabilities face a higher risk of different forms of violence
The majority (55% to 95%) of women survivors of intimate partner violence or sexual violence do not disclose or seek any type of help or services
Being abused as a child or exposed to violence in the family when growing up, attitudes accepting of violence and gender inequality including gender norms increase the risk of perpetrating violence against a partner; in some settings violence is associated with excessive use of alcohol
Globally, over one billion children – over half of all boys and girls aged 2–17 years – experience some form of emotional, physical or sexual violence every year
The lifetime prevalence of childhood sexual abuse is 18% for girls and 8% for boys
Homicide is among the top five causes of death in adolescents, with boys comprising over 80% of victims and perpetrators
Regional statistics also exist. For example in Europe, it is estimated that one in five (20%) children have experienced sexual abuse, and in the WHO European region, a quarter of women (15-49 years) have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime. In Latin America and the Caribbean, it is estimated that 58% of children experience sexual, physical or emotional violence each year, and 30% of women have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime.

SAN RAMON, Calif., – Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) has reached a settlement agreement with James Russell DeLeon, the principal funder of the fraudulent lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador. Chevron brought claims against DeLeon in Gibraltar, where DeLeon maintains a residence, for his role in funding and advancing the fraudulent lawsuit. In the settlement, DeLeon has resolved those claims by withdrawing financial support from the Ecuador litigation and assigning his interests in the litigation to Chevron. Chevron, in turn, has agreed to release all claims against DeLeon. In filings with the Gibraltar court, DeLeon previously disclosed having invested approximately $23 million in the case in exchange for an approximate 7 percent stake in the $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron. DeLeon’s funding entity, Torvia Limited, and his associate, Julian Jarvis, are also parties to the settlement.

“We are pleased that yet another long-time supporter has ended his association with this scheme,” said R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s vice president and general counsel. “Chevron will continue to hold accountable those who associate themselves with this fraudulent litigation.”

On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron in Ecuador was the product of fraud and racketeering activity, finding it unenforceable in the United States and holding Steven Donziger, the lead lawyer behind the lawsuit, liable for RICO violations. The judgment also discussed DeLeon’s involvement, which included providing the main source of funding for the propaganda film Crude, contributing approximately 60 percent of the film’s total funding. As part of the settlement, DeLeon has agreed to assign to Chevron all of his financial interests in Crude.

In a public statement released today, DeLeon stated:

“Commencing in March 2007, I provided funding to support the litigation in Ecuador against Chevron Corporation, in the good faith belief that I was supporting a worthy cause.

However, I have since reviewed the March 4, 2014 opinion by Judge Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York setting out the Court’s findings and I have also considered the evidence presented during the trial. As a result, I have concluded that representatives of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, including Steven Donziger, misled me about important facts. If I had known these facts, I would not have funded the litigation.

I no longer seek or wish to receive any financial benefit from this matter and I have therefore decided to relinquish my entire interest in the litigation to Chevron.”

In settling this matter, DeLeon is the latest party, among many others, to disassociate himself from Donziger and the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs. During the seven-week federal racketeering trial against Donziger, more than a dozen former insiders and allies testified against him, including his former co-counsel, environmental consultants, funders, employees and his Ecuadorian collaborators.

Chevron still has cases pending in Gibraltar against U.K.-based Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd. for its role in funding the lawsuit; Amazonia Recovery Ltd., a Gibraltar-based company set up by Donziger and his associates to receive and distribute funds resulting from the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron; and Pablo Fajardo, Luis Yanza and Ermel Chavez, who are all directors of Amazonia Recovery Ltd.

Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company’s success is driven by the ingenuity and commitment of its employees and their application of the most innovative technologies in the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. The company explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has today published a detailed update of her office’s investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns.

In March 2017, the ICO began looking into whether personal data had been misused by campaigns on both sides of the referendum on membership of the EU.

In May it launched an investigation that included political parties, data analytics companies and major social media platforms.

Today’s progress report gives details of some of the organisations and individuals under investigation, as well as enforcement actions so far.

This includes the ICO’s intention to fine Facebook a maximum £500,000 for two breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Facebook, with Cambridge Analytica, has been the focus of the investigation since February when evidence emerged that an app had been used to harvest the data of 50 million Facebook users across the world. This is now estimated at 87 million.

The ICO’s investigation concluded that Facebook contravened the law by failing to safeguard people’s information. It also found that the company failed to be transparent about how people’s data was harvested by others.

Facebook has a chance to respond to the Commissioner’s Notice of Intent, after which a final decision will be made.

Other regulatory action set out in the report comprises:

warning letters to 11 political parties and notices compelling them to agree to audits of their data protection practices;
an Enforcement Notice for SCL Elections Ltd to compel it to deal properly with a subject access request from Professor David Carroll;
a criminal prosecution for SCL Elections Ltd for failing to properly deal with the ICO’s Enforcement Notice;
an Enforcement Notice for Aggregate IQ to stop processing retained data belonging to UK citizens;
a Notice of Intent to take regulatory action against data broker Emma’s Diary (Lifecycle Marketing (Mother and Baby) Ltd); and
audits of the main credit reference companies and Cambridge University Psychometric Centre.
Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:

“We are at a crossroads. Trust and confidence in the integrity of our democratic processes risk being disrupted because the average voter has little idea of what is going on behind the scenes.

“New technologies that use data analytics to micro-target people give campaign groups the ability to connect with individual voters. But this cannot be at the expense of transparency, fairness and compliance with the law.

She added:

“Fines and prosecutions punish the bad actors, but my real goal is to effect change and restore trust and confidence in our democratic system.”

A second, partner report, titled Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence, sets out findings and recommendations arising out of the 14-month investigation.

Among the ten recommendations is a call for the Government to introduce a statutory Code of Practice for the use of personal data in political campaigns.

Ms Denham has also called for an ethical pause to allow Government, Parliament, regulators, political parties, online platforms and the public to reflect on their responsibilities in the era of big data before there is a greater expansion in the use of new technologies.

She said:

“People cannot have control over their own data if they don’t know or understand how it is being used. That’s why greater and genuine transparency about the use of data analytics is vital.”

In addition, the ICO commissioned research from the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at the independent thinktank DEMOS. Its report, also published today, examines current and emerging trends in how data is used in political campaigns, how use of technology is changing and how it may evolve in the next two to five years.

The investigation, one of the largest of its kind by a Data Protection Authority, remains ongoing. The 40-strong investigation team is pursuing active lines of enquiry and reviewing a considerable amount of material retrieved from servers and equipment.

The interim progress report has been produced to inform the work of the DCMS’s Select Committee into Fake News.

The next phase of the ICO’s work is expected to be concluded by the end of October 2018.

Notes to Editors
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent regulator for data protection and information rights law, upholding information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
The ICO has specific responsibilities set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA2018), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR).
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a new data protection law which applies in the UK from 25 May 2018. Its provisions are included in the Data Protection Act 2018. The Act also includes measures related to wider data protection reforms in areas not covered by the GDPR, such as law enforcement and security. The UK’s decision to leave the EU will not affect the commencement of the GDPR.
However, due to the timing of certain incidents in this investigation, civil monetary penalties have to be issued under the previous legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998. The maximum financial penalty in civil cases under former laws is £500,000.
Under past and current law, the ICO can take action to change the behaviour of organisations and individuals that collect, use and keep personal information. This includes criminal prosecution, non-criminal enforcement and audit.
Since 25 May 2018, the ICO has the power to impose a civil monetary penalty (CMP) on a data controller of up to £17million (20m Euro) or 4% of global turnover.
The GDPR and the DPA2018 gave the ICO new strengthened powers, some of which, such as assessment notices can be used for this investigation because certain powers can be used as soon as the GDPR comes into force.
The data protection principles in the GDPR evolved from the original DPA, and set out the main responsibilities for organisations. Article 5 of the GDPR requires that personal data shall be:
Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals;
Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes;
Adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed;
Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date
Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary; and
Processed using appropriate technical or organisational measures in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data.”

Article 5(2) requires that “the controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate, compliance with the principles.”
Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) under past and current law are subject to a right of appeal to the (First-tier Tribunal) General Regulatory Chamber against the imposition of the monetary penalty and/or the amount of the penalty specified in the monetary penalty notice.
Any monetary penalty is paid into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund and is not kept by ICO.
To report a concern to the ICO go to ico.org.uk/concerns.

WASHINGTON, DC – In a major step toward fully implementing the historic Cobell settlement, the Department of the Interior announced today that it has sent initial purchase offers to consolidate ownership of highly fractionated trust lands. Working closely with the Oglala Sioux leadership to facilitate the tribe’s priorities, owners of fractionated land interests at the Pine Ridge Reservation are the first to receive purchase offers under the Department’s Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. Purchase offers to individuals with interests at the Makah Indian Reservation will also be sent this week. Additional sets of offers will be sent to owners of interests at both locations in the coming weeks. Purchasing interests at fair market value from willing sellers will ultimately further strengthen tribal sovereignty by supporting the consolidation of tribal lands.

As part of President Obama’s commitment to help strengthen Indian communities, the Buy-Back Program was created to implement the land consolidation component of the Cobell Settlement which provided a $1.9 billion fund to purchase fractionated interests in trust or restricted land from willing sellers, at fair market value, within a 10-year period. Consolidated parcels will be transferred to tribal governments for uses benefiting the tribes.

“The Buy-Back Program is one of the clearest opportunities we have to put power and decision-making back in the hands of tribal nations – to stimulate their economies, to determine how to manage their available resources, and to promote tribal sovereignty and self-determination,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. “I want to acknowledge the incredible effort that went into this milestone, through our nation-to-nation relationship and across the Department. It is this spirit of collaboration that will continue to guide our efforts to reduce fractionation and implement the Buy-Back Program in as efficient, transparent and fair a manner as possible.”

Interior holds about 56 million acres in trust or restricted status for American Indians. More than 10 million acres are held for individual American Indians and nearly 46 million acres are held for Indian tribes. The Department holds this land in more than 200,000 tracts, of which about 93,500 – on approximately 150 reservations – contain fractional ownership interests available for purchase by the Buy-Back Program. Approximately 90% of the fractionated lands available to purchase are in 40 of the 150 locations.

The Pine Ridge Reservation is among the most highly-fractionated locations in the United States. In Pine Ridge alone, there are approximately 6,028 tracts with 195,862 purchasable fractional interests. Landowners with purchasable interests have been located in 46 states across the country. The Department recently announced a cooperative agreement with the Oglala Sioux tribe, which enables the tribe’s leadership to utilize administrative program resources to conduct owner outreach and education about the Buy-Back Program.

“Today’s announcement honors the commitment we made that initial offers would be received before the end of the year,” said Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. “Our partnerships with Indian Country have been critical to the work that has gotten us to today and we look forward to our continued work together. This is a program that will move thoughtfully to tailor implementation to fit the unique priorities of each nation.”

The announcement of purchase offers at the Makah Indian Reservation demonstrates both the diversity and flexibility of the Department’s land consolidation strategy. Implementation of the Buy-Back Program on Makah, which has 257 fractionated tracts containing 5,816 purchasable interests, is being facilitated by the tribe through informal collaboration. This is different than on Pine Ridge, where the Oglala Sioux tribe is helping carry out the functions of the Buy-Back program through a cooperative agreement with Interior. Tribes have the ability to work with Interior to choose the best implementation plan for their unique situation.

This Press Release is courtesy of DOI.gov

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions to begin to fix the Nation’s broken immigration system. These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border; prioritize deporting felons, not families; and allow certain undocumented immigrants who register and pass criminal and national security background checks to start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the United States without fear of deportation. These actions are only a first step toward reform of the system, and the Administration continues to count on the Congress for the more comprehensive reform that only legislative changes can provide.

The comprehensive reform supported by the President and passed by the Senate in 2013 would fix the Nation’s broken immigration system by continuing to strengthen U.S. border security, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, modernizing the Nation’s legal immigration system, and providing a pathway to earned citizenship for hardworking men and women who pay a penalty and taxes, learn English, pass background checks, and go to the back of the line.

In addition to contributing to a safer and more just society, comprehensive immigration reform will also boost economic growth, reduce deficits, and strengthen Social Security. Common sense immigration reform will strengthen the workforce by attracting and retaining the best and brightest students whom are trained at U.S. universities, strengthening capital investment and overall productivity, and increasing the number of entrepreneurs starting companies in the United States, thereby creating more jobs. Moreover, by adding younger workers to the labor force, reforming America’s broken legal immigration system will help balance an aging population and improve the economic and budget outlook as the baby boom generation retires.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the immigration bill that passed with bipartisan support in the Senate would reduce the deficit by about $160 billion in the first decade and by almost $1 trillion over 20 years. Meanwhile, the Social Security Actuaries have found that the Senate bill would reduce the Social Security shortfall by $300 billion over the first 10 years and would close eight percent of the 75-year Social Security shortfall.

The Administration supports the bipartisan Senate approach taken in 2013, and calls on the Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform this year. While the President’s executive actions will provide temporary relief while demanding accountability for those whose cases are not an enforcement priority, the Administration urges the Congress to act to permanently fix the Nation’s broken immigration system.

2.9.1
Addressing the Root Causes of Migration from Central America
The President’s Budget provides $1 billion to support a long-term, comprehensive strategy for Central America to minimize the pressures of illegal immigration on the United States. The Budget will enable concrete progress toward achieving the President’s priority of advancing security, prosperity, and economic growth in the region. The Budget provides resources to focused lines of effort that will take on the root causes of the dangerous migration of unaccompanied children and families, where Central American migrants are extremely vulnerable to becoming victims of violent crime or sexual abuse along the journey. These lines of effort are designed to achieve an economically-integrated Central America that provides economic opportunities to its people; more democratic, accountable, transparent, and effective public institutions; and a safe environment for its citizens to build their lives in peace and stability. Investments in the region also will allow the United States to work with its partners to improve the capacity of Central American governments to receive and reintegrate migrants and to target human smugglers. These resources will complement efforts by Central American governments, especially in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, to accelerate longer-term reforms and improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens. They will allow the United States to increase its coordination with regional governments as well as with international financial institutions, the private sector, civil society, and other international partners, to promote regional prosperity through a sustained, well-coordinated plan to address longstanding challenges to economic growth in the region. Based on the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, which focuses on the interlocking themes of prosperity, security, and good governance, the United States is ready to support aspects of the “Alliance for Prosperity” plan developed jointly by the governments of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, while working with other international stakeholders and the private sector to define and accelerate their support.

2.9.2
Securing the Borders and Enforcing U.S. Immigration Laws
Our long-term investment in border security and immigration enforcement has produced significant and positive results. Under this Administration, the resources that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dedicates to security at the Southwest border are at an all-time high. Compared to 2008, today there are 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents along the Southwest border. Border fencing, unmanned aircraft surveillance systems, and ground surveillance systems have more than doubled since 2008. Border apprehensions — a key indicator of border security — are at their lowest levels since the 1970s. Even this summer’s influx of unaccompanied children was met with an aggressive, coordinated Federal response focused on heightened deterrence, enhanced enforcement, stronger foreign cooperation, and greater capacity for Federal agencies to ensure that the U.S. border remains secure. As a result of the Administration’s efforts at the border, the size of the unauthorized population living in the United States has stopped growing for the first time in 40 years.

The Budget continues the investment in border security by maintaining U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) front line operations, funding additional technology and infrastructure, and expanding and enhancing intelligence and targeting capabilities. The Budget supports 21,370 Border Patrol Agents and 26,075 CBP Officers, including over 2,300 new Officers supported by proposed increases to user fees. The Budget includes over $373 million for the acquisition and sustainment of technology and tactical infrastructure along U.S. borders, an increase of $90 million over the current Continuing Resolution funding levels for DHS and $11 million above the 2015 Budget. This includes $128 million to support the deployment of new technology and tactical infrastructure investments along the Southwest border. These technology investments provide CBP with increased situational awareness on the border, as well as the ability to effectively respond to border incursions. The Budget also provides $97 million for recapitalization of aging non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, which will help CBP more efficiently detect security threats and facilitate lawful trade and travel. The Budget also funds an increase of $36 million in CBP intelligence and targeting activities that provide cutting-edge analytic support to Agents and Officers in the field.

A home health services company owner and a co-conspirator, both Miami, Florida residents, were sentenced to prison today for their roles in a $8.6 million health care fraud scheme.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office, Special Agent in Charge Shimon R. Richmond of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Miami Regional Office and Miami Air and Marine Branch Director Martin G. Wade of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations made the announcement.

Alexander Ros Lazo (Ros Lazo), 54, the owner of T.L.C. Health Services of Miami, was sentenced to serve 87 months in prison. Misleady Ibarra, 46, who performed home health therapy services without a license, was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison. The defendants were sentenced by U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan sitting in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Jordan also ordered Ros Lazo to pay $8,603,859 in restitution and to forfeit the same amount, and Ibarra to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. Ibarra and Ros Lazo pleaded guilty in December 2018 to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Both defendants were charged in an indictment returned on June 21, 2018.

As part of his guilty plea, Ros Lazo admitted that he paid kickbacks and bribes to his co-conspirators in exchange for home health services prescriptions and the referral of Medicare beneficiaries to T.L.C. Health Services. He further admitted that he and Ibarra agreed with their co-conspirators to commit health care fraud by billing Medicare for physical therapy services performed by Ibarra on behalf of licensed therapists despite knowing that she was not licensed to render those services to the Medicare beneficiaries. Ros Lazo admitted that as a result of the fraudulent claims, Medicare paid $8.6 million in benefits that it otherwise would not have.

As part of her guilty plea, Ibarra admitted to conspiring with Ros Lazo to commit health care fraud by rendering home health therapy services to Medicare beneficiaries when Ibarra was not licensed to provide these services.

The case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and CBP Air and Marine Operations. Trial Attorneys Alexander Kramer and Sara Clingan of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Yisel Valdes of the Southern District of Florida prosecuted the case.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which is part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which maintains 14 strike forces operating in 23 districts, has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $14 billion.

The former owner and chief executive officer of a Nashville, Tennessee-based telemarketing company pleaded guilty this morning to overseeing a fraudulent scheme in which limited-benefit health plans were sold to consumers as traditional health insurance, and to violating a federal court order that in 2010 froze his assets and shut down the company, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Don Cochran of the Middle District of Tennessee.

Timothy Thomas, 55, of Brentwood, Tennessee, pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and one count of contempt before U.S. District Judge David Lawson, sitting by designation in the Middle District of Tennessee. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Lawson on June 25. Thomas was charged in a 15-count indictment filed in October 2014.

According to admissions made as part of his plea, Thomas operated and controlled United Benefits of America (UBA) LLC, which was known at various times as United States Benefits (USB) and Health Care America. From at least 2007 to 2010, Thomas hired salespeople to sell over the phone so-called “association memberships” created by third-party companies such as International Association of Benefits and Consumer Driven Benefits of America. These memberships included bundled benefits, such as limited benefit health plans, prescription drug discount cards, accidental death and dismemberment benefits and lifestyle benefits, such as rental car discounts. Thomas targeted his sales to customers who had been denied traditional health insurance because of preexisting conditions, he admitted. The sales script used by Thomas attempted to portray the memberships as equal in quality to traditional health insurance, omitting the fact that limited benefit health plans left customers with the vast majority of the financial risk.

Thomas admitted that salespeople working for him made even more flagrant misrepresentations and omissions and used terms such as “deductibles” and “copays” to make customers believe they were buying traditional health insurance. Customer service employees and the Better Business Bureau routinely notified Thomas about customers complaining that they had been deceived into believing the plans were similar to traditional health insurance. Thomas oversaw a lax compliance program that was understaffed, with usually one employee monitoring up to 60 or 70 salespeople, and levied only occasional fines to salespersons who misrepresented or omitted key details of the plans. Despite knowing of the rampant misrepresentations and omissions, Thomas rarely fired salespeople for lying to customers, but routinely fired salespeople for low sales numbers, he admitted. When in 2009 a local news station, WSMV, ran a critical story on UBA featuring undercover footage of salespeople discussing misleading sales tactics, Thomas did not institute any meaningful changes in business practices. He merely changed the name of his company from UBA to USB and instructed a subordinate to sign a letter to the Better Business Bureau falsely claiming that the companies had nothing to do with each other.

When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Thomas and his company in August 2010, a federal judge in the Middle District of Tennessee issued an order freezing Thomas’s assets and placing his company into receivership. Immediately after being informed of the court’s order, Thomas violated it by withdrawing more than $100,000 from a brokerage account and convincing a friend to deposit checks totaling $528,647, constituting proceeds of the scheme, into the friend’s bank account, he admitted.

As part of his plea agreement, Thomas agreed to forfeit $1.5 million, representing the amount he personally gained through the fraudulent scheme.

The case was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General and the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration. The FTC and Tennessee Division of Insurance provided substantial assistance. Trial Attorney William E. Johnston of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Cecil VanDevender of the Middle District of Tennessee are prosecuting the case.

Gregory McLeod, 44, of Atlanta, Georgia, a former correctional officer with the rank of lieutenant at the U. S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, pleaded guilty to abusing an inmate by punching him in his face without any justification. McLeod also admitted that he intentionally obstructed a federal investigation into the matter by writing a false incident report.

“A correctional officer should never resort to violence or violate an inmate’s constitutional right to protection from unreasonable force, no matter the circumstance,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Civil Rights Division. “The Department of Justice will not tolerate any abuse of an individual’s civil rights under the law, or any effort to obstruct justice.”

“Working in a correctional facility is stressful and often dangerous work,” said U.S. Attorney Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “However, McLeod made an unnecessary and unconstitutional assault on an inmate, and then filed a false report to cover it up. An abuse of the power by any law enforcement officer is unacceptable.”

“No correctional officer is above the law,” said James F. Boyersmith, Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Miami Field Office. “The DOJ OIG takes allegations of civil rights violations and false statements very seriously. We appreciate the diligent efforts of our fellow law enforcement partners that assisted us in investigating this matter.”

“This guilty plea of former U.S. Bureau of Prisons Lieutenant McLeod was triggered by key and credible allegations of inmate abuse by prison staff,” said David J. LeValley, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office. “While the FBI would like to remind the public that the vast majority of those working within our nation’s correctional facilities consistently conduct themselves admirably under often harsh conditions, the FBI does have a duty to investigate and present for prosecution those corrections officers or staff members who abuse their authority and positions.”

According to the charging and court documents, McLeod, who worked as a supervisor at the prison, strip-searched an inmate in the lieutenants’ office in front of three other correctional officers. McLeod admitted that after the inmate complained that the strip-search was taking too long, he punched the inmate in his face without justification. McLeod also admitted that after the assault, he wrote an incident report and a separate memorandum about the encounter in which McLeod falsely claimed that the inmate swung a closed fist at him and attempted to assault other officers before the inmate was restrained.

Sentencing for McLeod will be on February 20, 2018, before U.S. District Court Judge Steve C. Jones.

This case was investigated by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and Atlanta Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Brent Alan Gray and Trial Attorney Mary J. Hahn of the Civil Rights Division.

For further information please contact the U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov (link sends e-mail) or (404) 581-6016. The Internet address for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia is http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga

Pamela Morris, former secretary of a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in Ozark, Alabama, pleaded guilty today to committing perjury during a grand jury’s investigation into a racially motivated cross-burning in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Morris, 46, admitted in plea documents that on Feb. 20, 2013, she lied to a federal grand jury looking into a cross-burning committed by Steven Joshua Dinkle, Morris’s son and the leader of the local KKK, and Thomas Smith, another KKK member. On May 8, 2009, Dinkle and Smith burned a six-foot tall cross at the entrance to an African-American neighborhood in Ozark to threaten and intimidate residents. In sworn testimony before the grand jury, Morris made several false statements, including denying that she had been the secretary of the chapter or involved with the KKK at all.

In pleading guilty, Morris admitted that she had been an officer of the KKK and that her testimony denying any connection to the organization was false. She further acknowledged that she knew Dinkle had committed the cross-burning. In addition, Morris admitted that she testified falsely to prevent the grand jury from learning about other KKK members who had information relevant to the investigation.

A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled. Morris faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Dinkle pleaded guilty on Feb. 3, 2014, to hate crime and obstruction of justice charges related to the cross-burning. On May 15, 2014, he was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison. Smith, Dinkle’s co-conspirator, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to interfere with housing rights on Dec. 6, 2013. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 19, 2014.

“Defendant Morris lied under oath blatantly and repeatedly to hinder an investigation into a cross-burning that was committed to intimidate an entire community,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “The department will continue to hold accountable not only those who commit such acts of violence, but also those who lie and obstruct the investigation into these crimes of intimidation.”

“Ms. Morris lied to the grand jury in an attempt to protect herself and to protect a cross burner,” said U.S. Attorney George L. Beck Jr. for the Middle District of Alabama. “When someone testifies in court they swear to tell the truth. Unfortunately, Ms. Morris lied. For our system of justice to protect the rights of all, those who testify before the grand jury must provide accurate and honest information. If someone fails to tell the truth while under oath, we will prosecute them.”

This case is being investigated by the FBI with the assistance of the Dale County Sheriff’s Office and the Ozark Police Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerusha T. Adams of the Middle District of Alabama and Trial Attorney Chiraag Bains of the Civil Rights Division.

This news is courtesy of www.justice.gov

Two former officials of and one broker for the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) were sentenced to prison today in Albany, Georgia, for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud their customers by shipping salmonella-positive peanut products before the results of microbiological testing were received and falsifying microbiological test results, the Department of Justice announced today.

Stewart Parnell, 61, of Lynchburg, Virginia, the former owner and president of PCA, was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Court Judge W. Louis Sands of the Middle District of Georgia to serve 336 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Michael Parnell, 56, of Midlothian, Virginia, who worked at P.P. Sales and was a food broker who worked on behalf of PCA, and is Stewart Parnell’s brother, was sentenced to serve 240 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Mary Wilkerson, 41, of Edison, Georgia, who held various positions at PCA’s Blakely, Georgia, plant including receptionist, office manager and quality assurance manager, was sentenced to serve 60 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release. Judge Sands will issue a restitution order at a later date.

The Parnell brothers were convicted by a federal jury on Sept. 19, 2014, of multiple counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud and the sale of misbranded food. Stewart Parnell was also convicted of the introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce. Stewart Parnell and Mary Wilkerson were also convicted of obstruction of justice. Stewart Parnell was found guilty of all but one of the 68 felony counts with which he was charged on Feb. 15, 2013.

Expert evidence at trial showed that tainted food led to a salmonella outbreak in 2009 with more than 700 reported cases of salmonella poisoning in 46 states. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on epidemiological projections, that number translates to more than 22,000 total cases including nine deaths. The court found that the evidence presented at trial linked Stewart and Michael Parnell’s conduct, and specifically PCA’s contaminated peanut products, to the victims’ illnesses. The court also found that steps taken by the CDC to link reported illnesses to the specific strain of salmonella found in PCA products established that Stewart and Michael Parnell’s conduct was the proximate cause of the victims’ illnesses.

“Americans should be able to trust that the food we buy for ourselves and our families is safe,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery. “The sentences handed down today to officials associated with the Peanut Corporation of America demonstrate the consequences for those whose criminal actions threaten that trust by introducing contaminated food into the marketplace. Our prosecution is just one more example of the forceful actions that the Department of Justice, with its agency partners, takes against any individual or company who compromises the safety of America’s food supply for financial gain.”

The government presented evidence at trial to establish that Stewart Parnell and Michael Parnell – with former PCA operations manager Samuel Lightsey, 50, and Daniel Kilgore, 46, both of Blakely – participated in several schemes by which they defrauded PCA customers and jeopardized the quality and purity of their peanut products. Specifically, the government presented evidence that the defendants misled customers about the presence of salmonella in their products. For example, the Parnells, Lightsey and Kilgore fabricated certificates of analysis (COAs) accompanying various shipments of peanut products. COAs are documents that summarize laboratory results, including test results concerning the presence or absence of pathogens in food. According to the evidence, on several occasions, the Parnells, Lightsey and Kilgore participated in a scheme to fabricate COAs that stated that the food at issue was free of pathogens when in fact there had been no testing of the food or tests had revealed the presence of pathogens.

The government also presented evidence that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials visited PCA’s Blakely plant to investigate the outbreak, Stewart Parnell, Lightsey and Wilkerson gave untrue or misleading answers to questions posed by those officials.

“Today’s sentencing sends a powerful message to officials in the food industry that they stand in a special position of trust with the American consumer, and those who put profit above the welfare of their customers and knowingly sell contaminated food will face serious consequences,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department of Justice will continue to work aggressively with its partners to ensure that the American people are protected from food that is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and pursue any person who fails to abide by the vital food safety protections in the law. We are dedicated to using all the tools that we have at our disposal to ensure that the processors and handlers of our food have the public’s safety forefront in their minds.”

“The sentence that was handed down today means that executives will no longer be able to hide behind the corporate veil,” said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore of the Middle District of Georgia. “The tragedy of this case is that at a peanut processing plant in Middle Georgia, protecting the public lost out to increasing of profits. This case was never just about shipping tainted peanut product; it was about making sure individual wrong doers were held accountable and the losses suffered by the victims and their families are never forgotten.”

Judge Sands took into account the fraud loss of PCA’s corporate victims when imposing today’s sentence. The court found that Stewart Parnell and Mary Wilkerson should be held accountable for more than $100 million but less than $200 million in losses, and Michael Parnell should be held accountable for more than $20 million but less than $50 million in losses. The court also found the government established evidence that Stewart Parnell and Mary Wilkerson should be accountable for harming more than 250 victims, and Michael Parnell should be accountable under federal sentencing guidelines for harming more than 50 victims. The court additionally found that the Parnells should have known that their actions presented a reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury.

“At the outset, the FBI saw this case as a serious breach of the public’s trust by a corporation and its officers who were expected to comply with the various regulations that would ensure their products safe for consumption,” said Special Agent in Charge J. Britt Johnson of FBI Atlanta Field Office. “They did not and lives were lost. The lengthy prison sentences handed down today in federal court clearly reflects the magnitude of the criminal conduct of these corporate officers and it is hoped that these sentences can provide some solace to those victims or their families who suffered so much from that criminal conduct and waited so long for justice.”

“Americans expect and deserve the highest standards of food safety and integrity,” said Dr. Stephen Ostroff, FDA Acting Commissioner. “Those who choose profits over the health and safety of U.S. consumers are now on notice that the FDA, working with the Department of Justice, will strive to use the full force of our justice system against them.”

Lightsey and Kilgore are scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, Oct. 1, in Albany.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Patrick Hearn and Mary M. Englehart of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Dasher of the Middle District of Georgia. Acting Associate Attorney General Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer and U.S. Attorney Moore thank the investigative efforts of the FBI and FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations.

The Department of Justice announced today that the following four banks reached a resolution under the department’s Swiss Bank Program:

Société Générale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera)

MediBank AG

LBBW (Schweiz) AG

Scobag Privatbank AG

“Today’s agreements reflect the Tax Division’s continued progress towards reaching appropriate resolutions with the banks that self-reported and voluntarily entered the Swiss Bank Program,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division. “The department is currently investigating accountholders, bank employees, and other facilitators and institutions based on information supplied by various sources, including the banks participating in this Program. Our message is clear – there is no safe haven.”

The Swiss Bank Program, which was announced on Aug. 29, 2013, provides a path for Swiss banks to resolve potential criminal liabilities in the United States. Swiss banks eligible to enter the program were required to advise the department by Dec. 31, 2013, that they had reason to believe that they had committed tax-related criminal offenses in connection with undeclared U.S.-related accounts. Banks already under criminal investigation related to their Swiss-banking activities and all individuals were expressly excluded from the program.

Under the program, banks are required to:

Make a complete disclosure of their cross-border activities;

Provide detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which U.S. taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest;

Cooperate in treaty requests for account information;

Provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed;

Agree to close accounts of accountholders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations; and

Pay appropriate penalties.

Swiss banks meeting all of the above requirements are eligible for a non-prosecution agreement.

According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreements signed today, each bank agrees to cooperate in any related criminal or civil proceedings, demonstrate its implementation of controls to stop misconduct involving undeclared U.S. accounts and pay the penalties in return for the department’s agreement not to prosecute these banks for tax-related criminal offenses.

Société Générale Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA (SGPB-Lugano) was established in 1974 and is headquartered in Lugano, Switzerland. Through referrals and pre-existing relationships, SGPB-Lugano accepted, opened and maintained accounts for U.S. taxpayers, and knew that it was likely that certain U.S. taxpayers who maintained accounts there were not complying with their U.S. reporting obligations. Since Aug. 1, 2008, SGPB-Lugano held and managed approximately 109 U.S.-related accounts, with a peak of assets under management of approximately $139.6 million, and offered a variety of services that it knew assisted U.S. clients in the concealment of assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including “hold mail” services and numbered accounts. Some U.S. taxpayers expressly instructed SGPB-Lugano not to disclose their names to the IRS, to sell their U.S. securities and to not invest in U.S. securities, which would have required disclosure and withholding. In addition, certain relationship managers actively assisted or otherwise facilitated U.S. taxpayers in establishing and maintaining undeclared accounts in a manner designed to conceal the true ownership or beneficial interest in the accounts, including concealing undeclared accounts by opening and maintaining accounts in the name of non-U.S. entities, including sham entities, having an officer of SGPB-Lugano act as an officer of the sham entities, processing cash withdrawals from accounts being closed and then maintaining the funds in a safe deposit box at the bank and making “transitory” accounts available, thereby allowing multiple accountholders to transfer funds in such a way as to shield the identity and account number of the accountholder. SGPB-Lugano will pay a penalty of $1.363 million.

Created in 1979 and headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, MediBank AG (MediBank) provided private banking services to U.S. taxpayers and assisted in the evasion of U.S. tax obligations by opening and maintaining undeclared accounts. In furtherance of a scheme to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS and evade taxes, MediBank failed to comply with its withholding and reporting obligations, providing “hold mail” services and offering numbered accounts, thus reducing the ability of U.S. authorities to learn the identity of the taxpayers. After it became public that the Department of Justice was investigating UBS, MediBank hired a relationship manager from UBS and permitted some of that person’s U.S. clients to open accounts at MediBank. Since Aug. 1, 2008, MediBank had 14 U.S. related accounts with assets under management of $8,620,675. MediBank opened, serviced and profited from accounts for U.S. clients with the knowledge that many likely were not complying with their U.S. tax obligations. MediBank will pay a penalty of $826,000.

LBBW (Schweiz) AG (LBBW-Schweiz) was established in Zurich in 1995. Since August 2008, LBBW-Schweiz held 35 U.S. related accounts with $128,664,130 in assets under management. After it became public that the department was investigating UBS, LBBW-Schweiz opened accounts from former clients at UBS and Credit Suisse. Despite its knowledge that U.S. taxpayers had a legal duty to report and pay tax on income earned on their accounts, LLB permitted undeclared accounts to be opened and maintained, and offered a variety of services that would and did assist U.S. clients in the concealment of assets and income from the IRS. These services included following U.S. accountholders instructions not to invest in U.S. securities and not reporting the accounts to the IRS and agreeing to hold statements and other mail, causing documents regarding the accounts to remain outside the United States. LBBW-Schweiz will pay a penalty of $34,000.

Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Scobag Privatbank AG (Scobag) was founded in 1968 to provide financial and other services to its founders, and obtained its banking license in 1986. Since August 2008, Scobag had 13 U.S. related accounts, the maximum dollar value of which was $6,945,700. Scobag offered a variety of services that it knew could assist, and that did assist, U.S. clients in the concealment of assets and income from the IRS, including “hold mail” services and numbered accounts. Scobag will pay a penalty of $9,090.

In accordance with the terms of the program, each bank mitigated its penalty by encouraging U.S. accountholders to come into compliance with their U.S. tax and disclosure obligations. While U.S. accountholders at these banks who have not yet declared their accounts to the IRS may still be eligible to participate in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, the price of such disclosure has increased.

Most U.S. taxpayers who enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program to resolve undeclared offshore accounts will pay a penalty equal to 27.5 percent of the high value of the accounts. On Aug. 4, 2014, the IRS increased the penalty to 50 percent if, at the time the taxpayer initiated their disclosure, either a foreign financial institution at which the taxpayer had an account or a facilitator who helped the taxpayer establish or maintain an offshore arrangement had been publicly identified as being under investigation, the recipient of a John Doe summons or cooperating with a government investigation, including the execution of a deferred prosecution agreement or non-prosecution agreement. With today’s announcement of these non-prosecution agreements, noncompliant U.S. accountholders at these banks must now pay that 50 percent penalty to the IRS if they wish to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

“These four additional bank agreements signal a change in terrain for offshore banking,” said Chief Richard Weber for the IRS-Criminal Investigation (CI). “No longer is it safe to hide money offshore and expect that it will not be discovered. ‎ IRS CI Special Agents will continue to follow the money to find those who circumvent the offshore disclosure laws and hold them accountable.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Ciraolo thanked the IRS and in particular, IRS-CI and IRS’s Large Business and International Division for their substantial assistance, as well as Karen M. Quesnel, Sean P. Beaty, Gregory S. Seador, W. Damon Dennis and Brian D. Bailey, who served as counsel on these matters, and Senior Counsel for International Tax Matters and Coordinator of the Swiss Bank Program Thomas J. Sawyer of the Tax Division.

U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Assistant Director in Charge Diego G. Rodriguez of the FBI’s New York Field Office, Commissioner William J. Bratton of the New York City Police Department and Special Agent in Charge Raymond R. Parmer Jr. of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) New York announced that earlier today, a federal grand jury in Brooklyn, New York, returned a superseding indictment charging Dilkhayot Kasimov, 26, a Brooklyn resident, with attempt and conspiracy to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a foreign terrorist organization. The defendant, who is charged along with three other Brooklyn residents whose arrests were first announced on Feb. 25, 2015, is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, April 8, 2015, at 2 p.m., before U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz II of the Eastern District of New York.

As alleged in the superseding indictment and other court filings, the investigation began last year when Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, one of Kasimov’s co-defendants, came to the attention of law enforcement after posting on an Uzbek-language website that propagates ISIL’s ideology. The investigation subsequently revealed that Juraboev and another co-defendant, Akhror Saidakhmetov, planned to travel to Turkey and then to Syria for the purpose of waging violent jihad on behalf of ISIL. Saidakhmetov was arrested on Feb. 25, 2015, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, where he was attempting to board a flight to Istanbul. Juraboev previously purchased a plane ticket to travel from New York to Istanbul and had been scheduled to leave the United States in March 2015.

Working closely with co-defendant Abror Habibov, Kasimov allegedly helped fund Saidakhmetov’s efforts to join ISIL. Kasimov and Habibov collected over $1,600 from multiple individuals for Saidakhmetov to use in Syria. Kasimov thereafter delivered the money to Saidakhmetov at Kennedy Airport shortly before Saidakhmetov was apprehended trying to board his flight in February. Additional investigation uncovered electronic messages in which Kasimov encouraged others to participate in violent jihad and made clear his role in facilitating the travel of foreign fighters to Syria.

“This defendant is the fourth Brooklyn resident charged as part of the same network of individuals who are alleged to have conspired and attempted to provide material support to ISIL,” said U.S. Attorney Lynch. “Terrorist support networks like the one this defendant was involved in offer critical funding, travel logistics, and encouragement to persons seeking to join ISIL and other foreign terrorist organizations. We will remain vigilant in our efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and to disrupt and dismantle the networks, here and abroad, that support them.” U.S. Attorney Lynch extended her grateful appreciation to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which comprises a large number of federal, state and local agencies from the region.

“Dilkhayot Kasimov allegedly attempted and conspired with others to provide material support to ISIL,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “The National Security Division remains committed to holding accountable all who seek to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. I would like to thank all of the agents, analysts and prosecutors who are responsible for this case.”

“Kasimov served as a money man in support of a co-defendant’s efforts to join ISIL,” said Assistant Director in Charge Rodriguez. “He provided encouragement and facilitated travel for foreign fighters. As the recent series of cases indicate, we will pursue every lead and every person who succumbs to this radical agenda. It is my hope that these cases deter others from sharing Kasimov’s fate: being under arrest and in trouble with the law.”

“Money is the oxygen that fuels terrorism,” said Commissioner Bratton. “This investigation proves again that we will leave no stone unturned to disrupt the finance, support, or membership in terrorist organizations like ISIL.”

“These arrests are the culmination of an extensive joint law enforcement effort to disrupt the recruitment of alleged terrorist sympathizers,” said Special Agent in Charge Parmer. “ICE-HSI will continue to use its unique immigration and customs authorities to assist our domestic and international law enforcement partners to stop jihadists from supporting terrorist organizations such as ISIL.”

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. The charges in the superseding indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The government’s case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander Solomon, Douglas M. Pravda and Peter W. Baldwin of the Eastern District of New York, with assistance provided by Trial Attorney Danya Atiyeh of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

BEIJING, Oct. 24, 2021 /CNW/ — The notion of Chinese democracy is not the same as that in the West. The political system in China is more about consensus building within a greater voice rather than the protracted bargaining to arrive at decisions common in the West.

The country’s application of democratic principles follows an approach Chinese President Xi Jinping has termed “whole-process people’s democracy.” The concept was put forward about two years ago, during Xi’s visit to a civic center in Shanghai.

Based on people’s congress system, the “whole-process people’s democracy” enables the Chinese people to broadly and continuously participate in the day-to-day political activities at all levels, including democratic elections, political consultation, decision-making and oversight.

The story of Chinese lawmaker Liu Li gives a glimpse into how China’s whole-process democracy operates.

A foot masseuse’s way up to China’s top legislature

Liu, a deputy to the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) China’s top legislature, has fought her way to the influential position from the grassroots.

She was born in a poor rural family in Yingshang, a small county in east China’s Anhui Province. She quit school at the age of 14 and worked to support the education of her four siblings.

After leaving home penniless, she went to Wuhan in central China’s Hubei Province to work as a waitress and nanny before finding a job as an apprentice in a foot massage center in Xiamen, east China’s Fujian Province.

Her humble background didn’t stop her charitable giving. Liu dropped out of school, but she didn’t want others to be like her. From 2006 to 2010, she sponsored over 100 students.

Liu’s goodwill made her a national celebrity. She was called “the most beautiful foot masseuse in China” and later became a representative for migrant workers and the rural population in China’s top legislative body.

In 2012, Liu was elected as a deputy to the local legislature in Xiamen and became an NPC deputy in 2013. A year later, she moved back to Anhui, where she runs a foot massage parlor and a community center for seniors. She was elected as a deputy for the 13th NPC.

‘Democracy is not for decoration’

Unlike legislators in the West who make a career of politics, China’s NPC deputies, like Liu, work part-time, and many of them are ordinary citizens from all walks of life, including farmers, factory workers, craftsmen, and even street cleaners.

At the annual full session, NPC deputies review and vote on important legal documents and personnel changes, including electing China’s president and vice president every five years and submitting motions and proposals.

Liu’s proposals have focused on disadvantaged groups, such as the elderly, children and migrant workers. In 2018, Liu proposed establishing local “one-stop” help centers to investigate child sexual abuse cases to the NPC. Her proposal was addressed by the NPC and measures were adopted.

Prosecution authorities in Anhui’s Dingyuan County took the lead and set up a juvenile legal education center to handle such cases and minimize the negative impact on children during investigations. Now, there are 15 such centers in the province.

Liu’s suggestions originated from close contact with local communities. When the NPC is not in session, she visits fellow migrant workers’ homes and collects their opinions online. She also listens to comments on society from her clients who come from all walks of life.

Liu’s story is only one example of how grassroots deputies respond to people’s needs and how people’s congresses contribute to China’s “whole-process democracy.” As Xi observed, “Democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems that the people want to solve.”

There are five levels of people’s congresses. The deputies are elected by their respective constituencies, either directly or indirectly. NPC deputies are elected by the people’s congresses of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. At the lower levels of township and county, deputies to people’s congresses are elected directly by voters, accounting for a majority of deputies at all levels. They elect deputies to people’s congresses of cities, who in turn elect deputies at the provincial level.

In 2019, there were a total of 2.67 million deputies of people’s congresses of all levels, including 590,000 at the county-level, and 1.94 million at the township level. Deputies at the two levels accounted for 95 percent of the total number.

“If the people are awakened only for voting but enter a dormant period soon after, if they are given a song and dance during campaigning but have no say after the election, or if they are favored during canvassing but are left out in the cold after the election, such a democracy is not a true democracy,” Xi has said.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-24/A-glimpse-of-China-s-whole-process-democracy–14BX3wxFJCg/index.html

SOURCE CGTN

CONTACT: Jiang Simin, +86-188-2655-3286, cgtn@cgtn.com

Amazon.com, Inc. has billed parents and other account holders for millions of dollars in unauthorized in-app charges incurred by children, according to a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed today in federal court.

The FTC’s lawsuit seeks a court order requiring refunds to consumers for the unauthorized charges and permanently banning the company from billing parents and other account holders for in-app charges without their consent. According to the complaint, Amazon keeps 30 percent of all in-app charges.

Amazon offers many children’s apps in its appstore for download to mobile devices such as the Kindle Fire. In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Amazon violated the FTC Act by billing parents and other Amazon account holders for charges incurred by their children without the permission of the parent or other account holder. Amazon’s setup allowed children playing these kids’ games to spend unlimited amounts of money to pay for virtual items within the apps such as “coins,” “stars,” and “acorns” without parental involvement.

“Amazon’s in-app system allowed children to incur unlimited charges on their parents’ accounts without permission,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Even Amazon’s own employees recognized the serious problem its process created. We are seeking refunds for affected parents and a court order to ensure that Amazon gets parents’ consent for in-app purchases.”

The complaint alleges that when Amazon introduced in-app charges to the Amazon Appstore in November 2011, there were no password requirements of any kind on in-app charges, including in kids’ games and other apps that appeal to children. According to the complaint, this left parents to foot the bill for charges they didn’t authorize.

According to the complaint, kids’ games often encourage children to acquire virtual items in ways that blur the lines between what costs virtual currency and what costs real money. In the app “Ice Age Village,” for example, the complaint noted that children can use “coins” and “acorns” to buy items in the game without a real-money charge. However, they can also purchase additional “coins” and “acorns” using real money on a screen that is visually similar to the one that has no real-money charge. The largest quantity purchase available in the app would cost $99.99.

The complaint highlights internal communications among Amazon employees as early as December 2011 that said allowing unlimited in-app charges without any password was “…clearly causing problems for a large percentage of our customers,” adding that the situation was a “near house on fire.”

In March 2012, according to the complaint, Amazon updated its in-app charge system to require an account owner to enter a password only for individual in-app charges over $20. As the complaint notes, Amazon continued to allow children to make an unlimited number of individual purchases of less than $20 without a parent’s approval. An Amazon employee noted at the time of the change that “it’s much easier to get upset about Amazon letting your child purchase a $99 product without any password protection than a $20 product,” according to the complaint. In July 2012, as set forth in the complaint, internal emails again described consumer complaints about in-app charges as a “house on fire” situation.

The complaint alleges that in early 2013, Amazon updated its in-app charge process to require password entry for some charges in a way that functioned differently in different contexts. According to the complaint, even when a parent was prompted for a password to authorize a single in-app charge made by a child, that single authorization often opened an undisclosed window of 15 minutes to an hour during which the child could then make unlimited charges without further authorization. Not until June 2014, roughly two and a half years after the problem first surfaced and only shortly before the Commission voted to approve the lawsuit against Amazon, did Amazon change its in-app charge framework to obtain account holders’ informed consent for in-app charges on its newer mobile devices, as explained in the complaint.

According to the complaint, thousands of parents complained to Amazon about in-app charges their children incurred without their authorization, amounting to millions of dollars of charges. For example, one mother noted in the FTC complaint told Amazon that her daughter was able to rack up $358.42 in unauthorized charges, while others complained that even children who could not read were able to “click a lot of buttons at random” and incur several unauthorized charges.

The company’s stated policy is that all in-app charges are final and nonrefundable. According to the complaint, even parents who have sought an exception to that policy have faced a refund process that is unclear and confusing, involving statements that do not explain how to seek refunds for in-app charges or suggest consumers cannot get a refund for these charges.

This is the Commission’s second case relating to children’s in-app purchases; Apple, Inc. settled an FTC complaint concerning the issue earlier this year. The Commission is seeking full refunds for all affected consumers, disgorgement of Amazon’s ill-gotten gains, and a court order ensuring that in the future Amazon obtains permission before imposing charges for in-app purchases.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-1, with Commissioner Joshua D. Wright voting no. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

This is courtesy of www.ftc.gov

In a complaint filed today, the Federal Trade Commission is charging mobile phone service provider T-Mobile USA, Inc., with making hundreds of millions of dollars by placing charges on mobile phone bills for purported “premium” SMS subscriptions that, in many cases, were bogus charges that were never authorized by its customers.

The FTC alleges that T-Mobile received anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of the total amount charged to consumers for subscriptions for content such as flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip that typically cost $9.99 per month. According to the FTC’s complaint, T-Mobile in some cases continued to bill its customers for these services offered by scammers years after becoming aware of signs that the charges were fraudulent.

Excerpts from an actual T-Mobile bill. Page 1 hides third party charges. Summary item ‘Usage charges’ includes third party charges for ‘Brain Facts’ text alerts. 123 pages later, under Premium Services, Other Service Provider Charges, the ‘Brain Facts’ text alerts show in the Description field as 8888906150 BrnStorm23918, total $9.99.
Excerpts from an actual T-Mobile bill showing cramming charges. (click to view full-size)
“It’s wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges.”

In a process known as “third-party billing,” a phone company places charges on a consumer’s bill for services offered by another company, often receiving a substantial percentage of the amount charged. When the charges are placed on the bill without the consumer’s authorization, it is known as “cramming.”

The FTC’s complaint alleges that in some cases, T-Mobile was charging consumers for services that had refund rates of up to 40 percent in a single month. The FTC has alleged that because such a large number of people were seeking refunds, it was an obvious sign to T-Mobile that the charges were never authorized by its customers. As the complaint notes, the refund rate likely significantly understates the percentage of consumers who were crammed. The complaint also states that internal company documents show that T-Mobile had received a high number of consumer complaints at least as early as 2012.

The FTC has made significant efforts to end mobile cramming. In the last year, in addition to holding a public workshop on mobile cramming, the Commission has filed several lawsuits against alleged mobile cramming operations Jesta Digital, Wise Media, and Tatto Inc. According to today’s complaint, T-Mobile billed its customers for the services of these FTC defendants as well as an operation sued by the Texas Attorney General.

The complaint against T-Mobile alleges that the company’s billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged, much less by whom. When consumers viewed a summary of their T-Mobile bill online, according to the complaint, it did not show consumers that they were being charged by a third party, or that the charge was part of a recurring subscription. The heading under which the charges would be listed, “Premium Services,” could only be seen after clicking on a separate heading called “Use Charges.” Even after clicking, though, consumers still could not see the individual charges.

The complaint also alleges that T-Mobile’s full phone bills, which can be longer than 50 pages, made it nearly impossible for consumers to find and understand third-party subscription charges. After looking past a “Summary” section as well as an “Account Service Detail” section, both of which described “Usage Charges” but did not itemize those charges, a consumer might then reach the section labeled “Premium Services,” where the crammed items would be listed.

According to the complaint, the information would be listed there in an abbreviated form, such as “8888906150BrnStorm23918,” that did not explain that the charge was for a recurring third-party subscription supposedly authorized by the consumer. In addition, the complaint notes that consumers who use pre-paid calling plans do not receive monthly bills, and as a result the subscription fee was debited from their pre-paid account without their knowledge.

When consumers were able to determine they were being charged for services they hadn’t ordered, the complaint alleges that T-Mobile in many cases failed to provide consumers with full refunds. Indeed, the FTC charged that T-Mobile refused refunds to some customers, offering only partial refunds of two months’ worth of the charges to others, and in other cases instructed consumers to seek refunds directly from the scammers – without providing accurate contact information to do so.

The complaint also notes that in some cases, T-Mobile claimed that consumers had authorized the charges despite having no proof of consumers doing so.

The FTC’s complaint seeks a court order to permanently prevent T-Mobile from engaging in mobile cramming and to obtain refunds for consumers and disgorgement of T-Mobile’s ill-gotten gains.

The FTC thanks the Federal Communications Commission and its Enforcement Bureau for their invaluable assistance with and close cooperation and coordination in this matter.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

This news is courtesy of www.ftc.gov

The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. deceived consumers with the advertising campaign it used to promote its supposedly “clean diesel” VWs and Audis, which Volkswagen fitted with illegal emission defeat devices designed to mask high emissions during government tests. The FTC is seeking a court order requiring Volkswagen to compensate American consumers who bought or leased an affected vehicle between late 2008 and late 2015, as well as an injunction to prevent Volkswagen from engaging in this type of conduct again.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC alleges that during this seven-year period Volkswagen deceived consumers by selling or leasing more than 550,000 diesel cars based on false claims that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly, met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale value. The cars sold for an average price of approximately $28,000.

“For years Volkswagen’s ads touted the company’s ‘Clean Diesel’ cars even though it now appears Volkswagen rigged the cars with devices designed to defeat emissions tests,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen’s deceptive and unfair practices.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Volkswagen promoted its supposedly “clean” cars through a high-profile marketing campaign that included Super Bowl ads, online social media campaigns, and print advertising, often targeting “environmentally-conscious” consumers.

For example, Volkswagen promotional materials repeatedly claimed that its “Clean Diesel” vehicles have low emissions, including that they reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 90 percent and have fewer such emissions than gasoline cars. In fact, the FTC’s complaint states that they emit up to 4,000 percent more than the legal limit of NOx — a dangerous pollutant that contributes to environmental harms and respiratory ailments.

The complaint alleges that Volkswagen also claimed that “Clean Diesel” vehicles met “stringent emission requirements,” were “50-state compliant,” and would maintain a high resale value. Yet, according to the FTC’s complaint, these claims were also false because without the illegally installed software, the “Clean Diesel” vehicles would not have passed federal emissions standards and the hidden defeat devices will significantly reduce the vehicles’ resale value.

The FTC also charged that Volkswagen provided the means and instrumentalities for others to deceive consumers, and that installing the emissions defeat devices was an unfair practice.

The affected vehicles include 2009 through 2015 Volkswagen TDI diesel models of Jettas, Passats, and Touareg SUVs, as well as TDI Audi models. The suggested sale prices for the affected vehicles ranged from approximately $22,000 for the least-expensive Volkswagen model with a 2.0-liter engine to approximately $125,000 for the most-expensive Audi model with 3.0-liter engine.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a federal court complaint against AT&T Mobility, LLC, charging that the company has misled millions of its smartphone customers by charging them for “unlimited” data plans while reducing their data speeds, in some cases by nearly 90 percent.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the company failed to adequately disclose to its customers on unlimited data plans that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T reduces – or “throttles” – their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications – like web browsing, GPS navigation and watching streaming video – become difficult or nearly impossible to use.

“AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, AT&T’s marketing materials emphasized the “unlimited” amount of data that would be available to consumers who signed up for its unlimited plans. The complaint alleges that, even as unlimited plan consumers renewed their contracts, the company still failed to inform them of the throttling program. When customers canceled their contracts after being throttled, AT&T charged those customers early termination fees, which typically amount to hundreds of dollars.

The FTC alleges that AT&T, despite its unequivocal promises of unlimited data, began throttling data speeds in 2011 for its unlimited data plan customers after they used as little as 2 gigabytes of data in a billing period. According to the complaint, the throttling program has been severe, often resulting in speed reductions of 80 to 90 percent for affected users. Thus far, according to the FTC, AT&T has throttled at least 3.5 million unique customers a total of more than 25 million times.

According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers in AT&T focus groups strongly objected to the idea of a throttling program and felt “unlimited should mean unlimited.” AT&T documents also showed that the company received thousands of complaints about the slow data speeds under the throttling program. Some consumers quoted the definition of the word “unlimited,” while others called AT&T’s throttling program a “bait and switch.” Many consumers also complained about the effect the throttling program had on their ability to use GPS navigation, watch streaming videos, listen to streaming music and browse the web.

The complaint charges that AT&T violated the FTC Act by changing the terms of customers’ unlimited data plans while those customers were still under contract, and by failing to adequately disclose the nature of the throttling program to consumers who renewed their unlimited data plans.

FTC staff worked closely on this matter with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved two final orders settling charges that Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (Sony) and its advertising agency at the time falsely advertised certain capabilities of the company’s PlayStation Vita (PS Vita) handheld gaming console introduced for sale in 2012.

According to the FTC’s complaints, announced jointly in November 2014, Sony deceived consumers with false advertising claims about several “game changing” technological features of the PS Vita in late 2011 and early 2012. The Commission alleged that Deutsch LA, Sony’s advertising agency for the PS Vita launch, knew or should have known that the advertisements it produced contained misleading claims about the console’s capabilities.

The FTC also alleged that Deutsch LA misled consumers by urging its employees to create awareness and excitement about the PS Vita on Twitter, without instructing them to disclose their connection to the advertising agency or its then-client Sony.

In the FTC’s order with Sony, it is barred from making misleading advertising claims about the features or attributes of its handheld gaming consoles in the future. Under the order, Sony will provide consumers who bought a PS Vita gaming console before June 1, 2012, either a $25 cash or credit refund, or a $50 merchandise voucher for select video games, and/or services.

The FTC’s order with Deutsch LA bars it from making similar misrepresentations as Sony, and bars misrepresentations that an endorser of any game console product or video game product is an independent user or ordinary consumer of the product. It also requires the agency to disclose a material connection, where one exists, between any endorser of a game console product or video game product and Deutsch LA or other entity involved in the manufacture or marketing of the product.

The Commission vote to approve the final consent orders and send letters to members of the public who submitted comments was 5-0. (FTC File No. 122-3252; the staff contacts are Linda Badger and Matthew Gold , FTC’s Western Region, San Francisco, 415-848-5100)

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP FREE (1-877-382-4357 FREE). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook (link is external), follow us on Twitter (link is external), and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.