The next Bitcoin halving is on the horizon, drawing closer with each passing block and anticipated to take place anywhere between April 18 to April 22, 2024, at the milestone of block 840,000. Following this event, the reward for mining a block will halve from 6.25 bitcoins to 3.125 bitcoins. The following is a thorough […]
Source link
(Reuters) -China has introduced guidelines to phase out U.S. microprocessors from Intel and AMD from government personal computers and servers, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
The procurement guidance also seeks to sideline Microsoft’s Windows operating system and foreign-made database software in favour of domestic options, the report said.
Government agencies above the township level have been told to include criteria requiring “safe and reliable” processors and operating systems when making purchases, the newspaper said.
China’s industry ministry in late December issued a statement with three separate lists of CPUs, operating systems and centralised database deemed “safe and reliable” for three years after the publication date, all from Chinese companies, Reuters checks showed.
The State Council Information Office, which handles media queries for the council, China’s cabinet, did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.
Intel and AMD did not immediately respond to Reuters request for comment.
The U.S. has been aiming to boost domestic semiconductor output and reduce reliance on China and Taiwan with the Biden administration’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act.
It is designed to bolster U.S. semiconductors and contains financial aid for domestic production with subsidies for production of advanced chips.
(Reporting by Akanksha Khushi in Bengaluru; Editing by Christian Schmollinger, William Mallard and Lincoln Feast.)
In a significant legal turnaround, the Appellate Court of Montenegro issued a decision on Feb. 7, 2024, overturning the previous ruling of the High Court in Podgorica concerning the extradition of Terraform Labs founder Hyeong Do Kwon.
The court’s decision was announced in a press release published on Feb. 8. The case, marked by international interest from both the Republic of South Korea and the U.S., has been remanded back to the first instance for a retrial and decision.
The Appellate Court’s decision came after considering an appeal by Kwon’s defense attorneys against the High Court’s ruling from Dec. 29, 2023.
The High Court had initially found that the legal requirements for Do Kwon’s extradition to South Korea to face prosecution for multiple criminal charges were met. The court had also noted the interest of the U.S. in the matter, with media speculating that he would be sent to the U.S. at the time.
However, the appellate panel identified “significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure,” specifically citing issues with the clarity, reasoning, and comprehensiveness of the High Court’s decision.
According to the court, the first-instance decision failed to properly adhere to the shortened extradition procedure outlined in Article 29 of the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which empowers the court — not the Minister of Justice — to decide on extradition cases.
Furthermore, the court did not unequivocally determine the sequence in which the requests from South Korea and the U.S. were received. This sequencing is crucial under Article 26 of the same law when the extradition of an individual is sought by multiple countries.
The Appellate Court’s ruling highlights the complex interplay of national and international legal principles, especially in cases involving multiple jurisdictions. The decision to annul the extradition ruling and remand the case for retrial shows the importance of procedural clarity and adherence to legal standards.
Do Kwon’s case brings to the forefront the intricate nature of international extradition processes, which often involve delicate diplomatic negotiations and the application of diverse legal systems.
Montenegro, a country that has sought to align its legal framework with international standards, particularly in its aspirations for an EU membership, finds itself at the crossroads of significant legal, diplomatic, and ethical considerations.
Extradition treaties and international legal assistance acts are designed to facilitate cooperation between countries in prosecuting criminal offenses while ensuring the protection of individuals’ rights. The balance between fulfilling international obligations and safeguarding individual rights is a perennial challenge in extradition cases.
Historically, extradition cases like Kwon’s have tested the resilience of legal frameworks and the integrity of judicial processes in Montenegro and beyond. They highlight the need for transparency, due process, and adherence to legal standards to maintain public trust in the justice system and international relations.
Jack Dorsey has been notoriously hands-off. Recent events are forcing him to change.
For years, his payments company, Block, was perceived as a success, even with him only in the background. Things changed last month when he started running Square, one of Block’s marquee units, after his handpicked deputy abruptly left.
Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
National Australia Bank (NAB) blocked over A$270 million (around $184 million) in customer payments that raised scam concerns during the last four months, according to a July 17 statement.
NAB stated it stopped an undisclosed amount of transactions to crypto platforms where scams were prevalent between March and July. The bank did not name any exchange.
NAB, citing reports to the Australian Financial Crimes Exchange over a recent 30-day period, claimed that 50% of scams reported to the agency were linked to crypto.
Chris Sheehan, NAB’s Executive for Group Investigations and Fraud, said these scammers used cryptocurrency platforms to send these stolen funds overseas.
Last year, Australians lost A$221 million, over $150 million, to cryptocurrency scams, making this type of scam one of the fastest-growing threats in the country.
Other banks in Australia, including Commonwealth Bank of Australia, ANZ, and Westpac, have also taken similar steps recently. Blockchain Australia, a pro-crypto advocacy group, has expressed concerns that these restrictions could potentially inhibit the cryptocurrency industry’s growth within the country.
Meanwhile, Australia is not the only country working to prevent malicious players’ use of crypto. Belarus is working on a law to ban crypto trading outside of regulated exchanges to combat cybercrime.
Meanwhile, NAB stated that it introduced new measures within the last six months to better protects its customers.
The bank explained that some of the measures included the introduction of payment prompts, blocking the use of links in suspicious text messages, and taking action on spoofing.
These measures have had the desired effect, as the real-time payment prompts have led to the abandonment of about 12% of payments. The prompt appears if the transaction is uncharacteristic of the user activity and is meant to give the customer time to review before confirmation.
Despite slowing their transaction speed, the bank said 12% of its customers were pleased with the measures because it protects them from scams.
The post National Australia Bank blocks millions in crypto transactions citing scam concerns appeared first on CryptoSlate.
According to NAB executive for group investigations and fraud Chris Sheehan, they have observed many scammers using cryptocurrency platforms to launder stolen funds.
National Australia Bank (NAB) will begin blocking payments to high-risk crypto exchanges in an effort to curb scam losses. NAB announced the ban on Monday. It noted that it was taking action to protect its customers from the risks associated with cryptocurrency.
According to the NAB, it has stopped over $270 million worth of customer payments between March and July using payment prompts. Insights from the NAB app show 12% of payments were abandoned when customers received a real-time payment prompt in the app.
Again, recent data from the Australian Financial Crimes Exchange showed that 50% of reported scam funds had cryptocurrency linkage. With over $1.5 billion lost to investment scams by Australians in 2022 and about $221 million of that to crypto scams the threat posed by scam losses is great.
Earlier this year, Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank reportedly halted payments to Binance. ANZ also noted that it would start preventing payment to particular high-risk crypto trading platforms. Thus, the move to block payment to crypto exchanges is the latest in a series of measures by Australian banks to restrict cryptocurrency transactions.
While the ban is expected to affect Binance, NAB did not identify any specific cryptocurrency exchanges, noting its approach will be “consistent with the industry”. However, the bank stated that it will affect “high-risk” platforms with more scam events.
According to NAB executive for group investigations and fraud Chris Sheehan, they have observed many scammers using cryptocurrency platforms to quickly launder stolen funds. “We want to make it as hard as possible for these criminals and reduce the impact on our customers,” he said.
Meanwhile, a ban that affects Binance’s operations will only increase its woes in Australia. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission canceled its local derivatives license in April. Later in May, Binance lost its local banking partner Cuscal. The Australian regulator has also reportedly begun a probe into Binance’s operations in the country.
And it isn’t just Australia. Binance has come under fire in many of its operational jurisdictions in recent times. In the US, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the SEC have accused Binance of operating without proper license and improper handling of customer funds. In the Netherlands, the exchange was forced to withdraw after failing to secure a license. The company is also facing accusations of illegal operations in France.
Despite the regulatory assaults, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao has reiterated the company’s commitment to regulation. He said that they “are not just open but eager to collaborate with policymakers to shape the future of digital assets”.
next
An experienced writer with practical experience in the fintech industry. When not writing, he spends his time reading, researching or teaching.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the co-founder of FTX, has been denied his request to obtain documents from a Silicon Valley law firm, Fenwick & West LLP, as part of his defense strategy in his ongoing federal fraud case, Bloomberg reported. Bankman-Fried had hoped to use thes documents to support his claim that he relied on legal advice while engaging in the activities for which he is currently facing prosecution.
In a recent development, Bankman-Fried’s legal team approached the judge overseeing the case, urging the prosecution to hand over the documents obtained from Fenwick & West or to allow them to be obtained directly through a subpoena. However, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed the request, calling it a “fishing expedition” that would not be justified.
In preparation for his defense, Bankman-Fried’s legal team had planned to argue that he had relied on the advice provided by the law firm Fenwick & West. Bloomberg noted that this strategy is often employed by criminal defendants to counter prosecutors’ claims of intentional lawbreaking.
The counsel from Fenwick & West reportedly covered various topics, including the use of encrypted messaging apps, multimillion-dollar loans to FTX executives and compliance with United States banking regulations, which Bankman-Fried’s lawyers have argued are integral to the charges leveled against their client.
Related: US lawmaker demands answers from SEC on docs related to Sam Bankman-Fried’s arrest
Bankman-Fried, who is facing two criminal trials, has been accused of orchestrating a complex fraud scheme involving the misappropriation of billions of dollars in FTX customer funds. The funds were allegedly used for high-risk investments, personal expenses and even political donations.
On June 22, FTX initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, aiming to recover more than $700 million from investment firms linked to the company. The lawsuit targets K5 Global, Mount Olympus Capital and SGN Albany Capital, along with their affiliated entities and K5 co-owners Michael Kives and Bryan Baum. FTX alleges that funds were transferred from its affiliated firm, Alameda Research, to these entities through shell companies, and it seeks to reclaim the funds as avoidable transactions.
Magazine: Can you trust crypto exchanges after the collapse of FTX?