#anti money laundering course

[smartstepstrainingacademy]

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Course: Safeguard Your Business

Introduction

In today's complex financial landscape, safeguarding your business from the perils of money laundering is paramount. Anti-Money Laundering course regulations are crucial in preventing illicit financial activities and maintaining the integrity of the global financial system.

Why Choose Smart Steps Training Academy's AML Course?

Smart Steps Training Academy offers a comprehensive AML course designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills necessary to comply with AML regulations and mitigate risks. Our course covers a wide range of topics, including:

Understanding AML Regulations: Gain a deep understanding of the intricate legal framework surrounding AML, including international standards and local regulations.

Identifying Red Flags: Learn how to spot suspicious activities and transactions that may indicate money laundering.

Customer Due Diligence (CDD): Master the art of conducting thorough customer verification processes to prevent illicit activities.

Transaction Monitoring: Discover effective techniques for monitoring transactions and flagging suspicious patterns.

Reporting Obligations: Understand your reporting responsibilities to regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies.

AML Compliance Programs: Learn how to implement robust AML compliance programs within your organization.

Benefits of Our AML Course

Enhanced Compliance: Ensure your business adheres to stringent AML regulations and avoids hefty penalties.

Risk Mitigation: Identify and mitigate potential risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing.

Reputation Protection: Safeguard your business's reputation and maintain trust with clients and stakeholders.

Career Advancement: Advance your career in the financial industry by acquiring specialized AML expertise.

Practical Training: Our course combines theoretical knowledge with practical exercises to help you apply your learning in real-world scenarios.

Who Should Attend?

Our AML course is ideal for a diverse range of professionals, including:

Compliance Officers

Risk Managers

Financial Analysts

Bank Employees

Legal Professionals

Accountants

Business Owners

Enroll Today and Safeguard Your Future

Don't let money laundering jeopardize your business. Enroll in Smart Steps Training Academy's AML course and take proactive steps to protect your organization.

[dailyrothko]

No, the Popularity of Abstract Art is Not the Result of a CIA PsyOp

If you are unlucky enough to move around the internet these days and talk about art, you’ll find that many “First commenters” will hit you with what they see as some hard truth about your taste in art. Comments usually start with how modern art is “money laundering” always comically misunderstanding what that means. What they are saying is that, of course, rich people use investments as tax shelters and things like expensive antiques and art appraised at high prices to increase their net worth. Oh my god, I’ve been red-pilled. The rich getting richer? I have never heard of such a thing.

What is conveniently left out of this type of comment is that the same valuation and financial shenanigans occur with baseball cards, wine, vacation homes, guitars, and dozens of other things. It does indeed happen with art, but even the kind that the most conservative internet curator can appreciate. After all, Rembrandts are worth money too, you just don’t see many because he’s not making any more of them. The only appropriate response to these people who are, almost inevitably themselves, the worst artists you have ever seen, is silence. It would cruel to ask about their own art because there’s a danger they might actually enjoy such a truly novel experience.

When you are done shaking your head that you just subjected yourself to an argument about the venality of poor artists plotting to make their work valuable after they died, you can certainly then enjoy the accompanying felicity of the revelation they have saved to knock you off your feet: “Abstract art is a CIA PsyOp”

Here one must get ready either to type a lot or to simply say “Except factually” and go along your merry, abstract-art-loving way. But what are the facts? Unsurprisingly with things involving US government covert operations, the facts are not so clear.

Like everything on the internet, you are unlikely to find factual roots to the arguments about government conspiracies and modern art. The mere idea of it is enough to bring blossom for the “I’m not a sheep” crowd, some of whom believe that a gold toilet owning former president is a morally good, honest hard-working man of the people.

The roots of this contention come from a 1973 article in Artforum magazine, where art critic Max Kozloff wrote about post-war American painting in the context of the Cold War, centering around Irving Sandler’s book, The Triumph of American Painting (1970). Kozloff takes on more than just abstract expressionism in his article but condemns the “Self-congratulatory mood”of Sandler’s book and goes on to suggest the rise of abstract expressionism was a “Benevolent form of propaganda”. Kozoloff treads a difficult line here, asserting that abstraction was genuinely important to American art but that its luminaries, “have acquired their present blue-chip status partly through elements in their work that affirm our most recognizable norms and mores.”

While there were rumblings of agreements around Kozloff’s article of broad concerns, it did not give birth to an actual conspiracy theory at the time. The real public apprehension of this idea seems to mostly come from articles written by historian Frances Stonor Saunders in support of her book, “The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” (New York, New Press, 2000). (I have not read this 525 page book, only excerpts).

The gist of Ms. Saunders argument is a tantalizing, but mostly unsupported, labyrinthine maze of back door funding and novelistic cloak and dagger deals. According to Saunders, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an anti-communist cultural organization founded in 1950, was behind the promotion of Abstract art as part of their effort to be opinion makers in the war against communism. In 1966 it was revealed that the CCF was funded by the CIA. Saunders says that the CCF financed a litany of art exhibitions including “The New American Painting” which toured Europe in the late 1950s. Some of this is true, but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know the specifics.

Noted expert in abstract-expressionism, David Anfam said CIA presence was real. It was “a well-documented fact” that the CIA co-opted Abstract Expressionism in their propaganda war against Russia. “Even The New American Painting [exhibition] had some CIA funding behind it,” he says. But the reasons for this are not quite what the abstract art detractors might be looking for. After all, the CCF also funded the travel expenses for the Boston Symphony Orchestra and promoted Fodor’s travel guides. More than trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, it was meant to showcase the freedom artists in the US. enjoyed. Or as Anfam goes on to say, “It’s a very shrewd and cynical strategy, because it showed that you could do whatever you liked in America.”

For what it’s worth, Saunders’s book was eviscerated in the Summer 2000 issue of Art Forum at the time of its publication. Robert Simon wrote:

“Saunders draws extensively on primary and secondary sources, focusing on the convoluted money trail as it twists through dummy corporations, front men, anonymous donors, and phony fund-raising events aimed at filling the CCF’s coffers. She makes lengthy forays into such topics as McCarthyism, the formation and operation of the CIA, the propaganda work of the Hollywood film industry, and New York cultural politics—from Partisan Review to MoMA to Abstract Expressionism. Yet what seems strangely absent from Saunders’s panoramic history, as if it were a minor detail or something too obvious to require discussion, is the cultural object itself: The complex specifics of the texts, exhibitions, intellectual gatherings, paintings, and performances of the culture war are largely left out of the story.”

Another problem with the book seems to be that Saunders is an historian but not an art historian. For me, I sensed an overtone of superiority in the tale she’s spinning and most assuredly from those that repeat its conclusion. The thinly veiled message of some is that if it were “Real art” it would not have had be part of this government subterfuge. The reality is very different. For one thing, most of us know it is simply not true that you can make people devoted to a type of art for 100 years that they would sensibly hate otherwise. Another issue is that it’s quite obvious none of the artists actually knew about any government interference if there was any. Pollock, Rothko, Gottlieb and Newmann were all either communists or anarchists. Hardly the group one would recruit the help the US government free the world of communism. Additionally, this narrow cold war timeline ignores a huge amount of abstract art that Jackson Pollock haters also revile and consider part of the same hijacking of high (Frankly, Greek, Roman, or Renaissance) culture. If you look at the highly abstract signature work of Piet Mondrian and observe the dates they were painted, you’ll see 1908, 1914, 1916. This is some of the art denigrated as a CIA PsyOP, 35 years before the CIA even thought about it. Modern art didn’t come from nowhere as many would have you believe to discredit its rise. There was Surrealism, Dada, Bauhaus, Russian futurism and a host of other movements that fueled it.

Generally, people like to argue. On the internet, “I don’t like this” is a weak statement that always must be replaced by “This is garbage” or my favorite, “This is fake.”

It’s hardly surprising that the more conservative factions of our society look for any government involvement in our lives to explain why things are not exactly as they wish them to be, given the (highly ironic) conservative government-blaming that blew up after Reagan. In addition, modern fascists have always had a love affair with the classical fantasy of Greece and Rome. Both Mussolini and Hitler used Greece and Rome as “Distant models” to address their uncertain national identity. The Nazis confiscated more than 5,000 works in German museums, presenting 650 of them in the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art, 1937) show to demonstrate the perverted nature of modern art. It featured artists including Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Wassily Kandinsky, and Paul Klee, among others. The fear of art was real. It was the fear of ideas.

To a lot of people on the internet just the mentioning a “CIA program” is enough to get the cogs turning, but as with many things, the reality of CIA programs and government plots is often less than evidence of well planned coup.

The CIA reportedly spent 20 millions dollars on Operation Acoustic Kitty which intended to use cats to spy on the Kremlin and Soviet embassies. Microphones were planted on cats and plans were set in motion to get the cats to surreptitiously record important conversations. However, the CIA soon discovered that they were cats and not agreeable to any kind of regulation of their behavior.

As part of Operation Mongoose the CIA planned to undermine Castro's public image by putting thallium salts in his shoes, which would cause his beard to fall out, while he was on a trip outside Cuba. He was expected to leave his shoes outside his hotel room to be polished, at which point the salts would be administered. The plan was abandoned because Castro canceled the trip.

Regardless of your feelings on this subject or how much you believe abstract art benefited from government dollars, Saunders herself quotes in her book a CIA officer apparently involved in these “Long leash” influence operations. He says, “We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do.” Hardly the Illuminati plot we were promised.

In 2016, Irving Sandler, author of the book that started Kozloff tirading in 1973, told Alastair Sooke of The Daily Telegraph, “There was absolutely no involvement of any government agency. I haven’t seen a single fact that indicates there was this kind of collusion. Surely, by now, something – anything – would have emerged. And isn’t it interesting that the federal government at the time considered Abstract Expressionism a Communist plot to undermine American society?”

This blog post contains information and quotes sourced from The Piper Played to Us All: Orchestrating the Cultural Cold War in the USA, Europe, and Latin America, Russell H. Bartley International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 571-619 (49 pages) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p127_127.xml?language=en https://www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/learn/schools/teachers-guides/the-dark-side-of-classicism https://www.artforum.com/features/american-painting-during-the-cold-war-212902/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.artforum.com/columns/frances-stonor-saunders-162391/ https://www.artforum.com/features/abstract-expressionism-weapon-of-the-cold-war-214234/ Mark Rothko and the Development of American Modernism 1938-1948 Jonathan Harris, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1988), pp. 40-50 (11 pages)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Nurses whose shitty boss is a shitty app

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/17/loose-flapping-ends/#luigi-has-a-point

Operating a business is risky: you can't ever be sure how many customers you'll have, or what they'll show up looking for. If you guess wrong, you'll either have too few workers to serve the crowd, or you'll pay workers to stand around and wait for customers. This is true even when your "business" is a "hospital."

Capitalists hate capitalism. Capitalism is defined by risk – like the risk of competitors poaching your customers and workers. Capitalists all secretly dream of a "command economy" in which other people have to arrange their affairs to suit the capitalists' preferences, taking the risk off their shoulders. Capitalists love anti-competitive exclusivity deals with suppliers, and they really love noncompete "agreements" that ban their workers from taking better jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bondage-fees/#doorman-building

One of the sleaziest, most common ways for capitalists to shed risk is by shifting it onto their workers' shoulders, for example, by sending workers home on slow days and refusing to pay them for the rest of their shifts. This is easy for capitalists to do because workers have a collective action problem: for workers to force their bosses not to do this, they all have to agree to go on strike, and other workers have to honor their picket-lines. That's a lot of chivvying and bargaining and group-forming, and it's very hard. Meanwhile, the only person the boss needs to convince to screw you this way is themself.

Libertarians will insist that this is impossible, of course, because workers will just quit and go work for someone else when this happens, and so bosses will be disciplined by the competition to find workers willing to put up with their bullshit. Of course, these same libertarians will tell you that it should be legal for your boss to require you to sign a noncompete "agreement" so you can't quit and get a job elsewhere in your field. They'll also tell you that we don't need antitrust enforcement to prevent your boss from buying up all the businesses you might work for if you do manage to quit.

In practice, the only way workers have successfully resisted being burdened with their bosses' risks is by a) forming a union, and then b) using the union to lobby for strong labor laws. Labor laws aren't a substitute for a union, but they are an important backstop, and of course, if you're not unionized, labor law is all you've got.

Enter the tech-bro, app in hand. The tech-bro's most absurd (and successful) ruse is "it's not a crime, I did it with an app." As in "it's not money-laundering, I did it with an app." Or "it's not a privacy violation, I did it with an app." Or "it's not securities fraud, I did it with an app." Or "it's not price-gouging, I did it with an app," or, importantly, "it's not a labor-law violation, I did it with an app."

The point of the "gig economy" is to use the "did it with an app" trick to avoid labor laws, so that bosses can shift risks onto workers, because capitalists hate capitalism. These apps were first used to immiserate taxi-drivers, and this was so successful that it spawned a whole universe of "Uber for __________" apps that took away labor rights from other kinds of workers, from dog-groomers to carpenters.

One group of workers whose rights are being devoured by gig-work apps is nurses, which is bad news, because without nurses, I would be dead by now.

A new report from the Roosevelt Institute goes deep on the way that nurses' lives are being destroyed by gig work apps that let bosses in America's wildly dysfunctional for-profit health care industry shift risk from bosses to the hardest-working group of health care professionals:

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing/

The report's authors interviewed nurses who were employed through three apps: Shiftkey, Shiftmed and Carerev, and reveal a host of risk-shifting, worker-abusing practices that has nurses working for so little that they can't afford medical insurance themselves.

Take Shiftkey: nurses are required to log into Shiftkey and indicate which shifts they are available for, and if they are assigned any of those shifts later but can't take them, their app-based score declines and they risk not being offered shifts in the future. But Shiftkey doesn't guarantee that you'll get work on any of those shifts – in other words, nurses have to pledge not to take any work during the times when Shiftkey might need them, but they only get paid for those hours where Shiftkey calls them out. Nurses assume all the risk that there won't be enough demand for their services.

Each Shiftkey nurse is offered a different pay-scale for each shift. Apps use commercially available financial data – purchased on the cheap from the chaotic, unregulated data broker sector – to predict how desperate each nurse is. The less money you have in your bank accounts and the more you owe on your credit cards, the lower the wage the app will offer you. This is a classic example of what the legal scholar Veena Dubal calls "algorithmic wage discrimination" – a form of wage theft that's supposedly legal because it's done with an app:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

Shiftkey workers also have to bid against one another for shifts, with the job going to the worker who accepts the lowest wage. Shiftkey pays nominal wages that sound reasonable – one nurse's topline rate is $23/hour. But by payday, Shiftkey has used junk fees to scrape that rate down to the bone. Workers have to pay a daily $3.67 "safety fee" to pay for background checks, drug screening, etc. Nevermind that these tasks are only performed once per nurse, not every day – and nevermind that this is another way to force workers to assume the boss's risks. Nurses also pay daily fees for accident insurance ($2.14) and malpractice insurance ($0.21) – more employer risk being shifted onto workers. Workers also pay $2 per shift if they want to get paid on the same day – a payday lending-style usury levied against workers whose wages are priced based on their desperation. Then there's a $6/shift fee nurses pay as a finders' fee to the app, a fee that's up to $7/shift next year. All told, that $23/hour rate cashes out to $13/hour.

On top of that, gig nurses have to pay for their own uniforms, licenses, equipment and equipment, including different colored scrubs and even shoes for each hospital. And because these nurses are "their own bosses" they have to deduct their own payroll taxes from that final figure. As "self-employed" workers, they aren't entitled to overtime or worker's comp, they get no retirement plan, health insurance, sick days or vacation.

The apps sell themselves to bosses as a way to get vetted, qualified nurses, but the entire vetting process is automated. Nurses upload a laundry list of documents related to their qualifications and undergo a background check, but are never interviewed by a human. They are assessed through automated means – for example, they have to run a location-tracking app en route to callouts and their reliability scores decline if they lose mobile data service while stuck in traffic.

Shiftmed docks nurses who cancel shifts after agreeing to take them, but bosses who cancel on nurses, even at the last minute, get away at most a small penalty (having to pay for the first two hours of a canceled shift), or, more often, nothing at all. For example, bosses who book nurses through the Carerev app can cancel without penalty on a mere two hours' notice. One nurse quoted in the study describes getting up at 5AM for a 7AM shift, only to discover that the shift was canceled while she slept, leaving her without any work or pay for the day, after having made arrangements for her kid to get childcare. The nurse assumes all the risk again: blocking out a day's work, paying for childcare, altering her sleep schedule. If she cancels on Carerev, her score goes down and she will get fewer shifts in the future. But if the boss cancels, he faces no consequences.

Carerev also lets bosses send nurses home early without paying them for the whole day – and they don't pay overtime if a nurse stays after her shift ends in order to ensure that their patients are cared for. The librarian scholar Fobazi Ettarh coined the term "vocational awe" to describe how workers in caring professions will endure abusive conditions and put in unpaid overtime because of their commitment to the patrons, patients, and pupils who depend on them:

https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/

Many of the nurses in the study report having shifts canceled on them as they pull into the hospital parking lot. Needless to say, when your shift is canceled just as it was supposed to start, it's unlikely you'll be able to book a shift at another facility.

The American healthcare industry is dominated by monopolies. First came the pharma monopolies, when pharma companies merged and merged and merged, allowing them to screw hospitals with sky-high prices. Then the hospitals gobbled each other up, merging until most regions were dominated by one or two hospital chains, who could use buyer power to get a better deal on pharma prices – but also use seller power to screw the insurers with outrageous prices for care. So the insurers merged, too, until they could fight hospital price-gouging.

Everywhere you turn in the healthcare industry, you find another monopolist: pharmacists and pharmacy benefit managers, group purchasing organizations, medical beds, saline and supplies. Monopoly begets monopoly.

(Unitedhealthcare is extraordinary in that its divisions are among the most powerful players in all of these sectors, making it a monopolist among monopolists – for example, UHC is the nation's largest employer of physicians:)

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/its-time-to-break-up-big-medicine

But there two key stakeholders in American health-care who can't monopolize: patients and health-care workers. We are the disorganized, loose, flapping ends at the beginning and end of the healthcare supply-chain. We are easy pickings for the monopolists in the middle, which is why patients pay more for worse care every year, and why healthcare workers get paid less for worse working conditions every year.

This is the one area where the Biden administration indisputably took action, bringing cases, making rules, and freaking out investment bankers and billionaires by repeatedly announcing that crimes were still crimes, even if you used an app to commit them.

The kind of treatment these apps mete out to nurses is illegal, app or no. In an important speech just last month, FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya explained how the FTC Act empowered the agency to shut down this kind of bossware because it is an "unfair and deceptive" form of competition:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/26/hawtch-hawtch/#you-treasure-what-you-measure

This is the kind of thing the FTC could be doing. Will Trump's FTC actually do it? The Trump campaign called the FTC "politicized" – but Trump's pick for the next FTC chair has vowed to politicize it even more:

https://theintercept.com/2024/12/18/trump-ftc-andrew-ferguson-ticket-fees/

Like Biden's FTC, Trump's FTC will have a target-rich environment if it wants to bring enforcement actions on behalf of workers. But Biden's trustbusters chose their targets by giving priority to the crooked companies that were doing the most harm to Americans, while Trump's trustbusters are more likely to give priority to the crooked companies that Trump personally dislikes:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/12/the-enemy-of-your-enemy/#is-your-enemy

So if one of these nursing apps pisses off Trump or one of his cronies, then yeah, maybe those nurses will get justice.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[mariacallous]

Over the past decade, China has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its international media network. The Xinhua News Agency, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, and the China Daily web portal produce material in multiple languages and use multiple social-media accounts to amplify it. This huge investment produces plenty of positive coverage of China and benign depictions of the authoritarian world more broadly. Nevertheless, Beijing is also aware that news marked “made in China” doesn’t have anything like the influence that local people, using local media, would have if they were uttering the same messages.

That, in the regime’s thinking, is the ultimate form of propaganda: Get the natives to say it for you. Train them, persuade them, pay them—it doesn’t matter; whatever their motives, they’ll be more convincing. Chinese leaders call this tactic “borrowing boats to reach the sea.”

When a handful of employees at RT, the Russian state television network formerly known as Russia Today, allegedly offered to provide lucrative payments to the talking heads of Tenet Media, a Tennessee-based far-right influencer team, borrowing boats to reach the sea was exactly what they had in mind. According to a federal indictment released last week, RT employees spent nearly $10 million over the course of a year—money “laundered through a network of foreign shell entities,” including companies in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, and Hungary—with the aim of supporting Tenet Media’s work and shaping the messages in its videos.

The indictment makes clear that the influencers—propagandists, in fact—must have had a pretty good idea where the money was coming from. They were told that their benefactor was “Eduard Grigoriann,” a vaguely Euro-Armenian “investor.” They tried to Google him and found nothing; they asked for information and were shown a résumé that included a photograph of a man gazing through the window of a private jet. Sometimes, the messages from Grigoriann’s team were time-stamped in a way that indicated they were written in Moscow. Sometimes the alleged employees of Grigoriann’s alleged company misspelled Grigoriann’s name. Unsurprisingly, in their private conversations, the Tenet Media team occasionally referred to its mysterious backers as “the Russians.”

But the real question is not whether the talking heads of Tenet Media—the founders, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, who were the main interlocutors with the Russians, but also Tim Pool, Lauren Southern, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson—had guessed the true identity of their “investor.” Nor does it matter whether they knew who was really paying them to make videos that backed up absurd pro-Moscow narratives (that a terrorist attack at a Moscow shopping mall, loudly claimed by the Islamic State, was really carried out by Ukrainians, for example). More important is whether the audience knew, and I think we can safely say that it did not. And now that Tenet Media fans do know who funds their favorite influencers, it’s entirely possible that they won’t care.

This is because the messages formed part of a larger stream of authoritarian ideas that are now ubiquitous on the far right, and that make coherent sense as a package. They denounce U.S. institutions as broken, irreparable: If Donald Trump doesn’t win, it’s because the election is rigged. They imply American society is degenerate: White people are discriminated against in America. They suggest immigrants are part of a coordinated invasion, designed to destroy what remains of the culture: Illegal immigrants are eating household pets, a trope featured during this week’s presidential debate. For the Russians, the amplification of this narrative matters more than specific arguments about Ukraine. As the indictment delicately explains, many of the Russian-sponsored videos produced by Tenet Media were more relevant to American politics than to the Ukraine war: “While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.”

But these themes are also consistent with the Trump campaign’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions. People who have come to distrust the basic institutions of American democracy, who feel aggrieved and rejected, who believe that immigrants are invaders who have been deliberately sent to replace them—these are not people who will necessarily be bothered that their favorite YouTubers, according to prosecutors, were being sponsored by a violent, lawless foreign dictator who repeatedly threatens the U.S. and its allies with nuclear armageddon. On the contrary, many of them now despise their own country so much that they might be pleased to hear there are foreigners who, like the ex-president, want to burn it all down. If you truly hate modern America—its diversity, its immense energy, its raucous debate—then you won’t mind hearing it denounced by other people who hate it and wish it ill. On X earlier this year, Chen referred to the U.S. as a “tyranny,” for example, a phrase that could easily have been produced by one of the Russian propagandists who regularly decry the U.S. on the evening news.

These pundits and their audience are not manipulated by Russian, Chinese, and other autocrats who sometimes fill their social-media feeds. The relationship goes the other way around; Russian, Chinese, and other influence operations are designed to spread the views of Americans who actively and enthusiastically support the autocratic narrative. You may have laughed at Trump’s rant on Tuesday night: “The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.” But that language is meant to reach an audience already primed to believe that Kamala Harris, as Trump himself said, is “destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn’t have a chance of success. Not only success. We’ll end up being Venezuela on steroids.”

Plenty of other people are trying to reach that audience too. Indeed, the Grigoriann scheme was not the only one revealed in the past few days. In a separate case that has received less attention, the FBI last week filed an affidavit in a Pennsylvania courthouse supporting the seizure of 32 internet domains. The document describes another team of Russian operatives who have engaged in typosquatting—setting up fake news websites whose URLs resemble real ones. The affidavit mentions, for example, washingtonpost.pm, washingtonpost.ltd, fox-news.in, fox-news.top, and forward.pw, but we know there are others. This same propaganda group, known to European investigators as Doppelganger, has also set up similar sites in multiple European languages. Typosquatters do not necessarily seek to drive people to the fake sites. Instead, the fake URLs they provide make posts on Facebook, X, and other social media appear credible. When someone is quickly scrolling, they might not check whether a sensational headline purporting to be from The Washington Post is in fact linked to washingtonpost.pm, the fake site, as opposed to washingtonpost.com, the real one.

But this deception, too, would not work without people who are prepared to believe it. Just as the Grigoriann scam assumed the existence of pundits and viewers who don’t really care who is paying for the videos that make them angry, typosquatting—like all information laundering—assumes the existence of a credulous audience that is already willing to accept outrageous headlines and not ask too many questions. Again, although Russian teams seek to cultivate, influence, and amplify this audience—especially in Pennsylvania, apparently, because in Moscow, they know which swing states matter too—the Russians didn’t create it. Rather, it was created by Trump and the pundits who support him, and merely amplified by foreigners who want our democracy to fail.

These influencers and audiences are cynical, even nihilistic. They have deep distrust in American institutions, especially those connected to elections. We talk a lot about how authoritarianism might arrive in America someday, but in this sense, it’s already here: The United States has a very large population of people who look for, absorb, and believe anti-American messages wherever they are found, whether on the real Fox News or the fake fox-news.in. Trump was speaking directly to them on Tuesday. What happens next is up to other Americans, the ones who don’t believe that their country is cratering into chaos and don’t want a leader who will burn it all down. In the meantime, there are plenty of boats available to borrow for Russians who want to reach the sea.

[turnways]

The "The fundraisers are fake block and report!!" from omgthatdress, badjokesbyjeff, and others really boils down to wanting to remove any personal investment in stopping the genocide.

"The fundraisers are scams because they're messaging big accounts but also because they message small accounts and they're just there to guilt trip you. It's about making you feel bad. Instead don't feel bad and donate to this charity. Don't look into whether or not they directly help Palestinians escape genocide. Phew doesn't it feel nice to *really* help?"

Its the same mindset as "don't give that homeless guy money, what if he's just pretending to be homeless? Just donate to anti-homeless non-profits because that's the only *good* way to help the homelsss"

And that's not to say all charity organizations are evil money laundering schemes of course, many are at least trying to do good in the world. Or that nobody would even pretend to be in need to trick caring people out of their money because that does happen.

But I am saying it's weird to trust a nonprofit youve barely looked into how or if they directly help people any more than a gofundme with someone's full legal name and face attached because it "feels" suspicious to you

[thewriterowl]

I love you fics so so much. You're appreciated a lot, and we understand that you have a life and needs a break.

Take your time, your health and life is more important.

So only if you want, I would love Modern setting Mafia Din, obvious luke. I unfortunately can't find a lot of fics like this.

Thank youuuuu and have a good day

omg thank you!! This really is appreciated. Truly, it means a lot that you took time to say that. It always helps me keep working on these updates! But I also appreciate the reminder for the break; I am very bad at that lol

Modern Setting Mafia Dinluke AU

So, I have made Luke a baker (still one of my favorites) and a librarian for this AU but maybe he can be something else. Maybe a really good mechanic who does a lot of work on cars but really shines with motorcycles. He wants his own but he's currently working in a garage maybe run by Djarin's clan but it is low on the chain and has become corrupt as Pong Krell is the manager of it and is not paying Luke well (so he needs a beat up car to maybe sleep in in the future) and pocketing a lot--basically stealing from Din (not good). Krell is very arrogant and thinks he is taking enough to not cause ripples to carry up to the head of the whole clan but he is very, very wrong.

Din runs things tightly and with intense respect and fear. They do quite a bit of illegal happenings but they are a bit more anti-hero/vigilante types.

The family runs escort houses but they are actually very healthy (a little capitalistic but nothing is perfect) and no one is forced to work there. Whoever is can stop at any time and they have great health care and housing. Not to mention incredibly protected and treated with a lot of respect. Even the strip clubs are more are less legitimate and probably the cleanest and best one can find (Lando runs a BDSM house under Din). They actually take down a lot of trafficking through their work with this. He has daycares that's basically free for all who work with him. Drugs are tricky but they mostly ensure nothing tainted passes by as there is not much they can do about stopping it but you better not have anything hard around his territory. He's a "family" business, after all.

He gets his money through a lot of laundering, the escort houses, hacking, blue collar crimes where they rob the billionaires/millionaires, underground fight rings...and, ahem, a few...hits here and there. But they're very selective over who they take out.

Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't dangerous. He and his family chooses to do things through a nicer lens but he had to bury a lot of bodies to get to where he was so that whoever takes over from him wouldn't have to get their hands nearly as dirty. He will do cruel, cold, selfish things if it means he can protect those he cares about. And he won't let some greedy slug try to take more than what he's earned and cause a dent in the network he's created.

He goes when Krell isn't around, bringing in his motorcycle, maybe not removing his helmet to be safe, and Luke is on him instantly. The blond is so EXCITED to see this model and has to chat Din up about it, offering to get it all fixed for him if he wants, he'll put it back together quickly.

Din is very charmed and let's Luke have all the fun he could want as he sneaks into the office and gets all the evidence needed (the little one was very oblivious; that's no good for his own safety) and decides to just chat with this puppy.

Din and Luke probably separate a little smitten at the end.

Luke really has no idea what he's done until the next time Din comes, with his men, dressed in a (sexy as sin) suit and gets Luke in one of the super expensive, sound-proof cars as he...settles things with Krell.

Din can't spend too much time making Krell understand his mistakes.

He has a reservation after where he'll talk to Luke over some nice Italian about him moving in.

[hollow-keys]

I think a lot of people don't get that superheroes don't often have the morality of online leftist. They will see Batman go guns bad. Donate to charity. No killing. And assume his anti killing rules are routed in leftist ideology.

This isn't true. He supports state sanctioned killing in many comics. He is anti-vigilante killing. And on occasion even against self defense killing.

In Batman #420 Bruce locks KG Beast in a storage room and leaves him there to either find a way to escape himself or die (not seeming to care which, honestly if I am remembering correctly leaning towards death) but in Batman #422 he condemns Judy Koslosky's self defense killing of a serial killer who had already killed her sister because she lured him into attempting to kill her by following him around and glaring at him. Both give the villains the opportunity to survive KG Beast has to escape and Karl just has to resist the temptation to try to murder a woman.

There is Batman: The Hill where he defends the GCPD killing a 14 year old with a gun as necessary but in Batman: Under the Hood he condemns the death of Captain Nazi. This isn't the most leftist character in the world. Leftists don't tend to be okay with cops killing kids but against killing Nazis. It tends to be the other way around. I read Batman: The Hill and I do think the cops used undue force and should have at least attempted deescalation in that situation.

There is a lot to say about the vague morals of the characters. Batman does a lot for charity but he definitely classist in a lot of his appearances. Characters can be complex and imperfect. Just because he cares about people in poverty doesn't mean he doesn't look down on them.

Also the whole 'violently beat people okay' and 'child sidekick okay' because genre convention while killing bad. It's like . . . killing is also present in superhero comics? Deadpool, Wolverine, Crimson Avenger, the Spectre . . . killing is also part of the genre. It has nuance to it. But heroes have killed at least on occasion since the very beginning.

Yes, you get it! People on here take "doesn't kill/believes in redemption" to be inherently proof of support of rehabilitative justice and leftism when... it isn't lol. I've yapped about superheroes and copaganda before here (I think it's a good post, I'm proud of it) so I'll try not to repeat myself too much but a conservative can believe in people's ability to change and not killing or whatever while still supporting the structures of the police and prisons, still believing that people should be arrested and serve time, even the rest of their lives. And that's what people don't get.

The word cop has been so twisted by this site that people use it to mean "anyone who judges me" or "anyone I don't like." It's used to describe individual behaviour the person has a problem with which ends up obfuscating the fact that a cop isn't defined by their personal ideology or what type of violence they commit, they're defined by the fact they commit violence to uphold the state's power. Their personal thoughts and opinions can make them worse, more violent and more oppressive, but personal opinions do not change what they are. Batman is a paramilitary state operative, not a radical leftist. I'm sorry.

And yeah the charity defense also misunderstands the point because conservatives donate to charity all the time. Charity is used by the rich to launder their reputations. They give a tiny fraction of their wealth back to the people so people don't question the rest of their wealth. Narratively, this works the same way so writers can go "See! He tries helping people via kindness but Gotham is innately corrupt and people just choose to be evil here so of course he has to dress up as a bat every night." Narratively, his charity exists so the writers can justify why he has to be Batman and to make him look better. If he really meant to help people with his money, he wouldn't be a billionaire anymore.

You're right about killing being present in the genre since since forever. Not as consistently as other things, but still present for sure. People defend violence they enjoy as "just part of the genre" but condemn violence they don't as bad and wrong.

I support hitting superheroes with the leftist beam but the fact of the matter is that most aren't in text and Batman even less so than others.

And you can dislike this. Batman is a character who's been through a million different incarnations and interpretations and you can latch on to more liberal, understanding incarnations or make up your own but you cannot defend main universe Bruce by pretending he's something he's not.

Thanks for the ask!

[memorizingthedigitsofpi]

I'm in a course today and learning about anti-money laundering regulation and holy shitballs batman. The things I had no idea happened out there 🤯

[leatherbookmark]

antis scoff at the apologists’ “lack of/bad reading comprehension” but you take a look at them and it soon becomes apparent that theirs is just as bad if not worse.

“jc accuses wwx of bringing ruin to the lotus pier when it’s not his fault at all and he knows it” sometimes people whose family and friends have all been murdered can get a little emotional about it and say things they don’t actually mean. because of the emotions, you see. “if jgy is so filial why does he kill his father/have him raped” this is him ceasing to be filial after years of calmly enduring horrible treatment.

it’s like they need it explained that characters aren’t flat constructs with three personality traits max (”making a sandwich evilly”), and that they behave differently depending on the situation. except i feel like they do understand that, because they have seventeen phDs in talking about wwx’s trauma, his lack of other choices, his noble and morally correct intentions that automatically erase all possible negative consequences of his actions, etc, etc. it’s never about reading comprehension, unless “reading comprehension” is “agreeing with me, who is objectively correct”.

everything about Good™ characters, everything they do serves to show how Good™ they are, and everything Bad™ characters do serves to show how Bad™ they are, even if they build and finance an orphanage (money laundering), throw themselves in front of a truck to save a cat (a chance to get access to the owner, who they want to exploit) or sacrifice themselves to save the world (out of their narcissistic desire to have everyone love and praise them, of course). and they know this because it’s obvious. if you were smart and cool like them you’d know it too. pah

[tushar-trading-company]

When Does the Weekly Limit Reset on Cash App? A Comprehensive Guide

Cash App weekly limit for sending and receiving money depends on the status of account verification. Accounts that are not verified may only transfer as much as $250 per week and a total of $1000 per month. Cash App weekly limit is not reset on a particular date of the week. The reset time begins when you have reached the limit and continues to count down until it resets. It is therefore important to keep track of when you have exceeded them, so that you are aware of when they reset. To check them out, launch Cash App and navigate to your profile section. Let's begin and learn about the weekly limit of Cash App in greater detail and address the most important question: when does Cash App weekly limit reset?

What Is the Cash App Weekly Limit?

The Cash App has weekly limits on the exchange and transfer of funds to safeguard users from frauds, money laundering and other illegal activities. It ensures that they follow the anti-money laundering (AML) laws and remains safe for all users using the platform. The Cash App's weekly limit is the maximum amount you can transfer or withdraw within 7 days period.This limit could differ based on whether your account is verified or not. For verified users Cash App limit for a week is $250 for sending money.

When Does the Cash App Weekly Limit Reset?

The daily limit on Cash App is a continuous seven-day timeframe. It means that your limit is not reset at a set date like Sunday’s midnight, but instead seven days after each transaction. For instance, if you made a transaction on a Tuesday, at 3pm, that amount will "reset" and become available the following week, exactly one week later, at 3PM on the next Tuesday.

How to Check Your Cash App Weekly Limit?

You can check the available Cash App weekly limit by taking the steps mentioned below:

Open the Cash App on your Android or iPhone device.

Go to the Profile section.

Then click down until you reach the "Limits" section.

Here will find the total amount you have sent to, received, or removed, as well as the remaining limitations for the week in question.

How to Increase Your Cash App Weekly Limit?

If you are a verified user (those who have provided additional personal details like your full name and birth date and Social Security number), Cash App raises the limits significantly. Once verified, you can make payments up to $7500 per week and receive an unlimitable amount of cash. Here is how to increase Cash App weekly limit:

First of all, log into your Cash App account

Then go to Profile section and verify your identity

For this, you will be asked to shareall your personal information, including the date of birth, as well as the four digits that make up your Social Security number.

After your account has been verified, your limit for sending will be increased to $7,500 per week. In addition, your Cash App receiving limit will be unlimited.

What is the Cash App Weekly Limit for Withdrawals?

Cash App also putslimits on the amount of money you can withdraw from your bank account within the course of a week. In general, unregistered accounts can withdraw as much as $500 per month, and verified accounts are able to withdraw more. Like the limit for sending however, the Cash App weekly limit for withdrawals is reset on a rolling basis. The reset of every withdrawal takes place exactly seven days following the transaction.

Conclusion

Cash App’s weekly limits are designed to offer security and prevent fraud. By understanding the rolling reset schedule and verifying your identity, you can increase your Cash App’s limit and better manage your transactions. Keeping track of your transaction dates and knowing how the 7-day rolling period works will help ensure smooth transfers on Cash App.

[ethicsindia]

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) programs

Learn about the key elements of strong Anti-Money Laundering (AML) programs, especially in light of recent events like the departure of Binance's CEO, Changpeng Zhao, because of lapses in maintaining effective AML measures. Discover how organizations can strengthen their financial integrity, reduce risks, and meet regulatory standards through comprehensive AML programs. Read more about the components of AML programs in stopping illegal economic activities and protecting the global financial system.

[smartstepstrainingacademy]

Anti-Money Laundering Course: A Smart Step Towards Financial Security

Are you looking to bolster your career in the financial sector? Consider enrolling in an Anti-Money Laundering course offered by Smart Steps Training Academy.

Why is AML essential?

Anti-money laundering is a critical aspect of financial compliance. It involves identifying and preventing illegal activities that disguise the origin of illicit funds. By understanding AML regulations and best practices, you can contribute to a safer financial environment and protect your organization from legal and reputational risks.

What will you learn in our AML course?

Our comprehensive AML course covers a wide range of topics, including:

AML regulations: Gain a deep understanding of international and local AML laws and standards.

Customer due diligence: Learn how to effectively identify and verify customers to mitigate money laundering risks.

Suspicious activity reporting: Understand the process of identifying and reporting suspicious transactions.

AML compliance programs: Develop strategies for implementing and maintaining effective AML compliance programs.

Case studies: Analyze real-world examples to apply your knowledge to practical scenarios.

Why choose Smart Steps Training Academy?

Expert instructors: Our experienced instructors have a wealth of knowledge and practical experience in the AML field.

Interactive learning: Engage in interactive sessions, discussions, and case studies to enhance your understanding.

Flexible learning options: Choose from our in-person, online, or blended learning formats to suit your schedule.

Certification: Upon successful completion, you will receive a recognized AML certification to boost your career prospects.

Enroll today and take a smart step towards a successful career in the financial industry.

[infinitysisters]

“Moral grandiosity seems to have infected the nomenklatura class of giant corporations. It is not enough for them to ensure that the corporations make a decent profit within the framework of the law; they must claim to also be morally improving, if not actually saving, the world.

So it was with Alison Rose, the first female chief executive of the National Westminster Bank, a large British bank 39 percent owned by the British government. When first appointed to the position, she said that she would put combatting climate change at the centre of the bank’s policies and activities. Whether shareholders were delighted to hear this is unknown.

But the bank, under her direction, went further. Its subsidiary, Coutts, founded in 1692 and long banker to the rich, compiled a Stasi-like dossier on one of its customers, Nigel Farage, before “exiting” him from the bank, to use the elegant term employed by Ms. Rose. (Defenestration will come later, perhaps.)

Farage is, of course, a prominent right-wing political figure in Britain, as much detested as he is admired. There was no allegation in the dossier that he had done anything illegal; indeed, in person, he had always acted correctly and courteously toward staff. What was alleged was that his “values” did not accord with those of the bank, which were self-proclaimed as “inclusive” (though not of people with less than $3.5 million to deposit or borrow). Farage was depicted as a xenophobe and racist, mainly because he was in favour of Brexit and against unlimited immigration. That anyone could support Brexit for any reason other than xenophobia, or oppose unlimited immigration other than because he was a racist, was inconceivable to the diverse, inclusive thinkers of Coutts Bank.

Ms. Rose saw fit to leak details to the BBC about Farage’s banking affairs, claiming to believe that they were public knowledge already. She did not mention the 40-page dossier that her staff had put together, about Farage’s publicly-stated views. The Stasi would have been proud of the bank’s work, which comprehensively proved him to have anti-woke views.

Whatever else might be said about Mr. Farage, no one would describe him as a pushover, the kind of person who would take mistreatment lying down. Even the Guardian newspaper, which cannot be suspected of partiality for him, suggested that the bank and its chief executive had questions to answer.

It was not long before Ms. Rose had to beat a retreat. She issued a statement in which she said:

I have apologised to Mr. Farage for the deeply inappropriate language contained in [the dossier].

The board of the bank said that “after careful reflection [it] has concluded that it retains full confidence in Ms. Rose as CEO of the bank.”

The following day, Rose resigned, admitting to “a serious error of judgment.”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 $𝟏 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The weasel words of Ms. Rose and the bank board are worth examination. They deflected, and I suspect were intended to deflect, the main criticism directed at Ms. Rose and the bank: namely, that the bank had been involved in a scandalous and sinister surveillance of Mr. Farage’s political views and attempted to use them as a reason to deny him banking services, all in the name of their own political views, which they assumed to be beyond criticism or even discussion. The humble role of keeping his money, lending him money, or perhaps giving him financial advice, was not enough for them: they saw themselves as the guardians of correct political policy.

It was not that the words used to describe Mr. Farage were “inappropriate,” or even that they were libelous. It is that the bank saw fit to investigate and describe him at all, at least in the absence of any suspicion of fraud, money laundering, and so forth. “The error of judgment” to which Ms. Rose referred was not that she spoke to the BBC about his banking affairs (it is not easy to believe that she did so without malice, incidentally), but that she compiled a dossier on Farage in the first place—and then “error of judgment” is hardly a sufficient term on what was a blatant and even wicked attempt at instituting a form of totalitarianism.

This raises the question of whether one can be wicked without intending to be so, for it is quite clear that Ms. Rose had no real understanding, even after her resignation, of the sheer dangerousness and depravity of what the bank, under her direction, had done.

As for the board’s somewhat convoluted declaration that “after careful consideration, it concluded that it retains full confidence,” etc., it suggests that it was involved in an exercise of psychoanalytical self-examination rather than of an objective state of affairs: absurd, in the light of Ms. Rose’s resignation within twenty-four hours. The board, no more than Ms. Rose herself, understood what the essence of the problem was. For them, if there had been no publicity, there would have been no problem: so when Mr. Farage called for the dismissal of the board en masse, I sympathised with his view.

There is, of course, the question of the competence of the bank’s management. Last year, the bank’s profits rose by 50 percent (I wish my income had risen by as much). I am not competent to comment on the solidity of this achievement: excellent profits one year followed by complete collapse the next seem not to be unknown in the banking world. But the rising profits under Ms. Rose for the four years of her direction seem to point to, at least on some level, of competence. How many equally competent persons there are who could replace her, I do not know.

Still, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, as illustrated in this episode, is worrying. Would one trust such people if the political wind changed direction? Their views would change, but the iron moral certainty and self-belief would remain the same, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat. How many meetings have I sat through in which some apparatchik has claimed to be passionately committed to a policy, only to be just as passionately committed to the precise opposite when his own masters demand a change of direction?! The Coutts story is one of how totalitarianism can flourish.”

—

Theodore Dalrymple

[mariacallous]

European liberals erupted into cheers in 2019 when the 45-year-old environmentalist and civil rights lawyer Zuzana Caputova was sworn in as Slovakia’s president. Even though she has fallen short of her ambitious goal of rooting out the persistent corruption and cronyism that course through Slovak society, she has chalked up many successes. These have earned her widespread popularity among Slovaks, who seemed to understand her project would always require more than one five-year term.

There’s just one problem: Caputova, facing new headwinds from the election of a new populist prime minister, has announced she’s not prepared to fight on.

Not only was Caputova the first-ever woman to hold the office, but her progressive, pro-European outlook and squeaky-clean biography stood out in a regional landscape stocked with ethnic nationalists, authoritarians, and other questionable operators. Caputova’s tough anticorruption platform was welcome relief to a country that had been rocked by graft, money laundering, and abuse of power scandals, as well as the contracted murder of a young journalist investigating organized crime.

In the course of her five-year term, the newcomer to elected office acquitted herself remarkably well, navigating Slovakia through the pandemic and then the war in Ukraine, a country with which it shares 60 miles of border to the east. Even as Slovakia’s southern neighbor, Hungary, prevaricated and obstructed transatlantic solidarity with Ukraine—a course many Slovak nationalists applauded—Caputova, suddenly head of a front-line state, stood fast. She has remained unflinchingly pro-Western even in the face of an acute energy crisis and hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Her mission to clean up the Slovakian state also notched impressive wins. Dozens of investigations were launched and cases opened up against figures linked to former governments—many of which led to convictions. In August 2023, Caputova—sometimes referred to as the Erin Brockovich of Slovakia—fired the country’s counterintelligence service chief for interfering in corruption investigations. But her anticorruption drive grew larger in scope when parliamentary elections in September 2023 reinstated Robert Fico, the former prime minister and pro-Russian, anti-American populist with the interests of himself and his associates always foremost in mind.

Many supporters expected that Caputova, as the principled, popular face of a new Slovakia, would soldier on for at least another term come elections in March 2024: to finish the job she had started. But Caputova’s tenure, she announced in June 2023, will come abruptly to an end. Her family’s well-being, she said, was behind her choice not to run again. “My decision is a personal one,” she said. “I am sorry if I disappoint those who expected my candidacy again.” In office, she had received multiple death threats, she said. A year earlier, she had already complained about “people who are threatening to kill me are using the vocabulary of some politicians. It does not only concern me, but also my loved ones.”

At the time of her announcement, Caputova polled as Slovakia’s most trusted politician. “I was surprised and disappointed when I heard the news,” said Pavol Demes of a German Marshall Fund fellow in Bratislava, who served as Slovakia’s foreign minister from 1991 to 1992. “Her track record proves that it was not coincidence that people elected her,” Demes said, adding that he believes Caputova would have prevailed again at the ballot box.

Others admit they’re more than just disappointed with Caputova’s “premature departure,” as the Slovak daily Dennik N put it. “Having an opportunity and not using it is literally a sin,” opined the Slovak newspaper Pravda, “especially if it is one that will never come again. … President Zuzana Caputova’s decision not to run can be considered a mistake. At a time when the chaos in Slovak politics has reached unprecedented proportions and the disillusionment among the population is great, the president bears even more responsibility for the fate of the country.”

In office, Caputova often punched back as hard as she was punched by her less principled opponents. She refused to let Fico, in the opposition since 2020, hound and bully her with impunity. In May 2023, she sued Fico for calling her an “American agent” and of “appointing Soros’ government,” referring to U.S. billionaire-philanthropist George Soros and the technocratic caretaker government she appointed in May 2023. Slovak authorities are still pursuing criminal cases involving dangerous threats made against the president.

Caputova’s aversion to the nastier aspects of Central European politics—in 1995 the son of the then-Slovak president was literally kidnapped—is understandable. But Caputova’s presence is all the more necessary today as Fico and his Smer-SD party are back in power and bent on returning Slovakia to its former incarnation. In just four months, Caputova has checked Fico several times. In October, for example, Caputova quashed the nomination of Rudolf Huliak as environment minister by the Slovak National Party, a Fico ally. Huliak, a nationalist, is known as a climate skeptic and opponent of LGBTQ+ rights.

She is currently weighing a veto of the Fico government’s move to dismantle the special prosecutor’s office—the body that handled the most serious corruption cases—and modify the criminal code, which triggered weeks of protests across Slovakia and rule-of-law concern from the EU. By weakening criminal sanctions for financial crimes, Fico could rescue the likes of Smer-allied oligarchs who would otherwise face prison sentences. One opposition politico charged that the law looks as if the mafia itself had written it. If her veto is overridden, which is likely, Caputova could take the issue to the Constitutional Court.

Caputova’s decision not to run thus opens the way for a multi-candidate race, the first round of which will be held on March 23 with, if necessary, a second in April. The vote is likely to come down to two candidates: National Council Speaker Peter Pellegrini, an on-again, off-again Fico ally; and Ivan Korcok, a liberal-minded former Slovak foreign minister and career diplomat. If Pellegrini triumphs, his victory will open the way for Fico to set in motion a pro-Russia political course that will greatly complicate the West’s defense of Ukraine, among other concerns.

Certainly, there would be no presidential corrective to hinder Fico in emulating his strongman counterpart next door in Hungary, Viktor Orban. Poland’s throwing off of its authoritarian leadership last year could have left Orban completely isolated in Central Europe. But Fico, though unlikely to amass the power of Orban’s Fidesz party or act so defiantly as Law and Justice Poland, sees Orban as a blood brother.

“Fico and his followers are fascinated by Orban’s method of governance since 2018,” Juraj Marusiak of the Slovak Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Political Science told Foreign Policy. “They see this authoritarianism as efficient and Orban as someone who takes care of his country’s national interests. This has made Orban creditable in Central Europe beyond Hungary alone.”

And Caputova’s bright light will be missed beyond diminutive Slovakia. Upon her election in 2019, a Hungarian acquaintance said to me that the only reason someone like Caputova could win in Central Europe is because she seemed to have no drawbacks at all: She was politically clean, charismatic, down to earth, and smart. And in office, she learned the ropes quickly. But she wasn’t perfect, apparently—no one could foresee that there would eventually be limits to her will to lock horns with Slovakia’s ruthless profiteers.

Sadly, there’s only one of her in the region. And soon, by her own choice, there will be none.

[cpeinc]

Accounting in the Crypto Industry: Navigating the Complexities

As cryptocurrency becomes increasingly integrated into mainstream finance, accountants and finance professionals find themselves facing unique challenges and opportunities. Cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets, and blockchain technology have upended traditional methods of tracking and valuing assets, creating a new frontier in accounting that requires specialized knowledge and continual learning.

For CPAs, blockchain-related CPE courses can serve as a valuable resource for staying updated on industry changes and expanding knowledge in this evolving field.

The Current Landscape of Crypto Accounting

The rise of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets has fundamentally changed the financial landscape. These assets, and the technology that underpins them, present unique challenges that require a rethinking of traditional accounting practices. Some of the main areas impacted include:

Valuation and Reporting: Cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, and their value can change drastically over short periods. This volatility creates difficulties in determining the fair market value of digital assets, especially for financial statements.

Regulatory and Compliance Issues: Global regulations regarding cryptocurrencies vary widely, from open acceptance to strict bans. Accountants must stay abreast of both national and international regulations and understand how they impact the reporting, taxation, and audit processes for crypto assets.

Audit and Assurance: Blockchain offers an immutable ledger that should, in theory, simplify auditing. However, the reality is more complex. Auditors need to verify both the existence of assets and the control of private keys, which can be challenging in a decentralized environment.

Tax Implications: Tax authorities in many countries, including the IRS in the United States, are beginning to set guidelines for the taxation of cryptocurrencies. Accountants need to understand the implications of these regulations to ensure compliance and proper reporting.

The Role of CPE Courses in Enhancing Blockchain and Crypto Knowledge

For accountants, staying current in the crypto and blockchain space is essential. Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are rapidly evolving, and changes to regulatory guidelines, accounting standards, and tax laws are frequent. CPE Inc. offers a range of courses that help accounting professionals build and maintain expertise in these areas.

Gaining In-Depth Knowledge of Crypto Regulations and Compliance

CPE Inc.’s courses cover the latest regulatory changes, offering insights into how to stay compliant amidst evolving standards. These courses can help CPAs understand the nuances of financial regulations affecting crypto, including guidance from bodies like the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the IRS, and international regulators. Topics covered often include reporting guidelines, fair market value assessments, and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.

In addition to foundational knowledge, CPE Inc. courses offer insights into emerging areas such as decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and asset tokenization. Understanding these areas equips CPAs to handle complex client needs, whether they’re managing DeFi investments or accounting for digital collectibles. CPE courses provide a framework for recognizing revenue, valuing assets, and maintaining compliance within these newer subdomains of the crypto industry.

As the crypto industry evolves, so does the demand for skilled CPAs who can navigate its complexities. CPE Inc.’s blockchain and crypto-related courses provide accountants with the tools they need to meet the unique challenges of this sector, from fair value assessments to tax compliance. By staying informed and continually improving their crypto knowledge, CPAs can build a strong foundation for success in one of the most dynamic areas of finance today.

For more information about cpe ethics courses and Accounting Refresher Courses please visit:- CPE Inc.

[pankajbansal89newspatrolling]

How to Promote Cryptocurrency in 2024

BY: Pankaj Bansal , Founder at NewsPatrolling.com

Promoting cryptocurrency in 2024 requires a multifaceted approach due to the growing maturity of the market, increased regulation, and evolving technology. Here's a strategy that considers various promotional avenues and current trends:

1. Educate the Audience

Content Marketing: Publish high-quality content (blogs, videos, webinars, podcasts) that demystifies cryptocurrency. Focus on explaining how crypto works, benefits, risks, and investment strategies.

Partnerships with Educational Platforms: Collaborate with universities, online learning platforms (like Coursera or Udemy), and crypto influencers to create certified crypto courses.

Infographics and Explainers: Visual content like infographics can help explain complex concepts simply. Promote these on social media and crypto-related websites.

2. Leverage Social Media and Communities

Crypto-Specific Platforms: Engage with crypto communities on platforms like Twitter, Reddit (subreddits like r/cryptocurrency), and specialized forums like Bitcointalk or Discord channels.

Influencer Marketing: Partner with crypto influencers on YouTube, Twitter (now X), Instagram, or TikTok. Ensure that the influencers have credible reputations in the crypto space.

Host AMAs (Ask Me Anything): On Reddit, Twitter Spaces, or other platforms where potential users can ask questions directly to your team.

3. Strategic Partnerships

Collaborate with Businesses: Form partnerships with retailers, e-commerce platforms, or financial institutions that accept cryptocurrency. Highlight how your crypto project provides value to their customers (e.g., lower transaction fees, decentralized finance (DeFi) options).

Blockchain Projects: Collaborate with established blockchain or decentralized apps (dApps) projects that align with your cryptocurrency’s mission.

4. Use Airdrops and Giveaways

Airdrops: Distribute small amounts of your cryptocurrency to new users as a promotional tool. Airdrops can create buzz and get people engaged with your token.

Referral Programs: Incentivize users to promote your cryptocurrency with a referral program, rewarding both the referrer and the new user.

Contests and Bounties: Offer contests, quizzes, or bug bounties for developers, which can help promote user engagement and build community excitement.

5. Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and NFTs

DeFi Integrations: If your cryptocurrency integrates with DeFi platforms, promote how users can earn passive income through staking, lending, or yield farming.

NFT Collaborations: Partner with NFT projects to expand your audience. For example, NFTs can be used to reward loyal users or represent unique in-app assets in the metaverse.

6. Regulation and Trust-Building

Compliance: Ensure your project complies with local regulations, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules. Transparent compliance can reassure potential investors.

Third-Party Audits: Have your smart contracts and platform audited by reputable security firms. Publicly share the audit results to build trust in your product.

Clear Roadmap: Share a transparent, long-term development plan with regular updates. This creates confidence in the sustainability of your project.

7. SEO and Paid Advertising

SEO Strategy: Optimize your website for cryptocurrency-related keywords. Content should include both beginner-level and advanced topics to cater to a broad audience.

PPC Ads: Use platforms that allow crypto ads (Google recently loosened restrictions on crypto ads, but ensure compliance with local regulations). Ads on platforms like Twitter (X) or specialized crypto news outlets can be effective.

Sponsored Content: Pay for articles in reputable crypto media outlets like CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph, or Decrypt, focusing on your unique value proposition.

8. Conferences and Networking

Crypto and Tech Conferences: Attend and sponsor major blockchain conferences like Consensus, Devcon, or Token2049. You can speak at these events or host workshops to raise your profile.

Meetups and Local Events: Organize local meetups or sponsor grassroots events. This face-to-face engagement is valuable for community building.

9. Engage Developers

Developer Communities: Host hackathons and coding competitions to encourage developers to build on your platform.

Developer Incentives: Provide grants or bounties for developers who create decentralized apps (dApps) using your cryptocurrency or integrate it into existing projects.

10. Leverage Traditional Media

Press Releases and Media Outreach: Get coverage in major financial publications like Forbes, Bloomberg, or TechCrunch. Present your cryptocurrency as a solution to an emerging problem or trend.

TV and Podcasts: Appear on shows or podcasts where tech or financial topics are discussed, especially those with an interest in crypto.

11. Global Approach

Localized Campaigns: Tailor your promotional efforts to different regions, acknowledging differences in regulations, adoption rates, and cultural attitudes toward cryptocurrency.

Influence Developing Markets: Many developing countries are embracing cryptocurrency as a solution to unstable currencies or limited access to banking. Focus your marketing in these regions with targeted solutions.

12. User Experience

Simplify Onboarding: Streamline the onboarding process for new users. Tutorials, support channels, and seamless wallet integration will ensure users stick with your platform.

Mobile Optimization: Ensure your wallet, website, or exchange is optimized for mobile users, as mobile adoption continues to grow globally.

In 2024, promoting cryptocurrency will involve educating users, building trust through transparency, and leveraging emerging technologies like DeFi and NFTs. By creating a targeted and user-focused approach, you can effectively promote your cryptocurrency in a competitive and regulated environment.