Untitled

[newsbloggers]

Amazing Moments Captured on Video

Experience incredible moments, exciting scenes, and unforgettable highlights in this amazing video compilation. From surprising reactions to entertaining clips, this video is packed with fun and excitement from start to finish.

Watch till the end and enjoy every moment!

[newsbloggers]

אישום חמור: העלים 225 מיליון שקל מרווחי קריפטו ומכירת רשימות מהמרים

כתב אישום חמור הוגש השבוע לבית המשפט המחוזי בתל אביב נגד דימיטרי לייכטמן, בחשד שביצע עבירות כלכליות נרחבות בתחום המטבעות הדיגיטליים. לייכטמן מואשם בהעלמת הכנסות בסך כולל של כ־225 מיליון שקלים, שנבעו, בין היתר, ממכירת רשימות שיווק בתחום ההימורים והפיננסים, ומפעילות אינטנסיבית בזירת המסחר במטבעות וירטואליים.

השופט שמואל מלמד (בצילום) דן בתיק במסגרת הליך פלילי, אשר במסגרתו מיוחסות לנאשם עבירות רבות בתחום המסים והלבנת ההון. בהתאם לכתב האישום, לייכטמן פעל בשנים 2018 עד 2022, תוך שימוש במספר חברות בארץ ובחו"ל, והסתייע לשם כך באדם נוסף, רן פלד, אשר סייע לו לנהל את הפעילות ולהסתירה מרשויות האכיפה.

על פי כתב האישום, עיקר עיסוקו של לייכטמן בתקופה הרלוונטית היה רכישה ומכירה של רשימות הכוללות פרטים אישיים של מתעניינים במסחר מקוון, לרבות במסחר במטבעות וירטואליים ובהימורים. רשימות אלו נמכרו לגורמים שונים, אשר ביקשו להשתמש בהן לצרכים מסחריים, וזאת במקביל למסחר עצמאי שביצע הנאשם במטבעות וירטואליים.

עוד עולה כי לייכטמן ניהל את עסקיו באמצעות חברות שפעלו מישראל ומבולגריה, תוך שימוש בשרשרת של חשבונות בנק במדינות שונות, ובקרוב לשלושים ארנקים ממוחשבים. רשות המסים טוענת כי מדובר במערך פיננסי מתוחכם, אשר נועד להסתיר את היקף ההכנסות האמיתי ולמנוע דיווח נאות לרשויות.

המדינה טוענת כי לייכטמן העביר לישראל אך ורק כספים שנועדו לכיסוי הוצאותיו, דוגמת שכר עובדים ותשלומי שכירות, תוך הצגת הכספים כתשלומים מחברות עצמאיות שאין לו שליטה בהן. בפועל, כך נטען, מדובר היה בכספים שהתקבלו מתוך הכנסותיו האישיות והוסוו באמצעים מורכבים.

כתב האישום מייחס לנאשם שורת עבירות, בהן השמטת הכנסות, ניהול פנקסים כוזבים, עבירות לפי חוק מס ערך מוסף, וכן עבירות לפי חוק איסור הלבנת הון. לטענת המדינה, מדובר בהתנהלות מתמשכת ושיטתית, שנועדה להעלים הכנסות בהיקף של מאות מיליוני שקלים לאורך תקופה של מספר שנים.

לצד כתב האישום, הוגשה לבית המשפט בקשה להטלת עיקולים זמניים על נכסי לייכטמן, לרבות נכסי מקרקעין, רכוש ממוחשב וחשבונות בנק, בארץ ומחוצה לה. הבקשה נועדה למנוע הברחת נכסים אפשרית, וזאת עד להכרעה בהליך העיקרי. כמו כן נבחנת האפשרות להגיש בקשה להמשך מעצרו של הנאשם עד תום ההליכים.

הדיון הבא בתיק צפוי להתקיים במהלך חודש יולי. הנאשם טרם הגיש את תגובתו לכתב האישום, אך סנגוריו ציינו כי מדובר בתיק מורכב, המחייב בחינה מדוקדקת של הראיות. הפרקליטות מבקשת להאיץ את בירור ההליך, וזאת נוכח סכומי ההון הגבוהים שנקשרו בעבירות והתחכום הרב של המנגנון שנבנה.

[newsbloggers]

UAE Company Fined Dh118,500 for Document Fraud: ADGM Enforcement Action

Abu Dhabi Global Market fines company and director for falsifying documents and misleading investigators. Learn about ADGM’s strict enforcement measures.

Abu Dhabi business regulations, Abu Dhabi free zone regulations, ADGM enforcement, ADGM penalties, document falsification UAE, UAE company fraud, UAE financial compliance

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) has demonstrated its commitment to maintaining strict regulatory standards by imposing significant fines on a company and its director for document falsification and obstruction of investigations.

Breakdown of Penalties

The Registration Authority (RA) issued the following penalties:

Avante Limited: Dh58,700 ($16,000)

Director Khaldoon Bushnaq: Dh59,800 ($16,300)

Additional investigation costs: Dh36,700 ($10,000)

Total penalties reached Dh118,500 ($32,000).

Nature of Violations

The investigation revealed several serious breaches:

Submission of falsified documents to a UAE bank

Use of counterfeit RA authentication codes and stamps

Provision of misleading information

Concealment of important documents

Failure to prevent record falsification

ADGM’s Investigation Findings

The regulatory body uncovered that:

The company submitted fake documentation to a UAE-based bank

Documents contained falsified RA stamps

Authentication codes were fabricated

The director failed to implement proper safeguards

Settlement Details

Both parties agreed to settle:

20% discount applied to final penalties

Full cooperation required moving forward

Payment of investigation costs mandatory

Regulatory Impact

This case highlights:

ADGM’s zero-tolerance approach to fraud

Strict oversight of free zone operations

Protection of UAE banking sector integrity

Importance of regulatory compliance

ADGM’s Jurisdiction

The authority governs:

Al Maryah Island

Al Reem Island

Abu Dhabi’s financial free zone

Compliance Lessons for UAE Companies

This case offers important reminders:

Maintain accurate documentation

Implement strong internal controls

Cooperate fully with investigations

Verify authentication processes

Train staff on compliance requirements

Why This Matters

This enforcement action sends clear messages:

Document authenticity is paramount

Regulatory cooperation is mandatory

Penalties for non-compliance are substantial

Free zone regulations are strictly enforced

Preventive Measures for Businesses

Companies operating in UAE free zones should:

Review documentation procedures

Strengthen verification processes

Update compliance training

Maintain accurate records

Engage transparently with authorities

Future Implications

This case establishes:

Clear precedent for penalties

Standards for regulatory cooperation

Expectations for business conduct

Framework for future enforcement

Final Analysis

The ADGM’s decisive action reinforces Abu Dhabi’s position as a well-regulated financial centre. Companies must prioritise compliance and maintain honest communication with regulatory authorities or face serious consequences.

[newsbloggers]

‘Defendants were raising funds to steal’: Purported billionaire, associates face lawsuit

A Las Vegas investor and purported billionaire is once again facing litigation in Clark County, this time over allegations that he and his business associates took money from investors in a cryptocurrency mining scheme.

A lawsuit filed May 21 alleges that Jay Bloom orchestrated a scheme to create a cryptocurrency mining operation run on solar power generators in Kingman, Arizona, and operated by the company Pegasus Group Holdings.

The company purchased parcels of land from the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Aileron Investments and Contrail Holdings, using credit, but never paid the purchasing price or interest to the companies, the lawsuit said.

Although Bloom and his business associates told investors that they would generate profit, the company “never got past the initial stages of mining crypto currencies,” according to the lawsuit. The generators the company claimed to own were actually leased, and were not sufficient for the planned operation, the lawsuit said.

“Resembling a classic ‘pump and dump’ scheme, Defendants had no intention of running a legitimate business enterprise,” the lawsuit said. “Instead, they spread false and misleading information to create investor excitement and to obtain favorable sale terms.”

David Doto, an attorney for Bloom, responded via email to a Las Vegas Review-Journal request for comment.

“We look forward to vigorously defending Mr. Bloom against these outrageous allegations in a court of law where testimony must be made under oath and before a jury of one’s peers, and we are confident that justice will be served,” Doto wrote.

In a Saturday email to a Review-Journal reporter, Bloom asked that the news organization reach out to a Jon Cooper, who he identified as “largest investor in Pegasus” and a CEO in the company who “handled the books and records as well as the daily operations for the company.”

Bloom wrote that his email be considered off the record, but the Review-Journal declined to agree to that condition.

Bloom wrote that the reporter should ask Cooper “about the truthfulness of the events as described, as he has the most knowledge as to what transpired. Jon had access to actual information and the daily operations that Plaintiff either never had the ability to review or simply ignored.”

Several attempts to reach Cooper on Saturday were unsuccessful.

In a separate email message, Doto wrote that he and Bloom were aware of the complaint and that the lawsuit had “not yet been challenged by the crucible of motion practice or answered by Mr. Bloom, nor have any potential counter-claims been filed.”

Doto called the lawsuit “one-sided” and a potential story “premature,” while also pointing to Cooper, who is not named in the lawsuit, as a possible source of information.

“Respectfully, your intention to plow quickly ahead with a news story based on the unfounded and harmful ‘allegations’ in the complaint does not appear congruent with journalistic ethics and responsibilities,” Doto wrote.

Bloom and the other defendants had not filed a response to the lawsuit as of Friday, court records show.

In late 2021, Bloom was advertising that he expected to front hundreds of millions of his own capital to persuade the NBA to bring an expansion team to Southern Nevada.

In the same year, one of the corporations under Bloom’s name, which owned Bloom’s only known residence, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and court records show that the corporation was entangled in litigation over garbage pickup fees, raising questions about Bloom’s financial status.

Bloom’s history in Las Vegas includes the founding of the Las Vegas Mob Experience, an interactive show that operated in 2011 at the Tropicana Las Vegas, but soon went bankrupt.

The latest lawsuit against Bloom paints him and his business associates as a group who “grift from one fad enterprise to another, bilking investors out of millions of dollars along the way.”

“The modus operandi is the same, Defendants present themselves as wealthy, serial entrepreneurs that rub elbows with the elite and politicians, including British Royalty, local office holders, sheriffs, Supreme Court justices, the President of the United States, athletes and movie stars,” the complaint said.

Bloom’s website pictures him with numerous national and local politicians, and records show he has reported $33,500 in donations to Nevada campaigns in 2024 alone.

According to the lawsuit, Bloom used his connections to attract investors to Pegasus Group Holdings. In 2019, Bloom and his associates held a press conference in Kingman, in which a British duchess was used as a paid spokeswoman, the lawsuit said.

“That day Bloom himself represented that they were mining crypto currency and that they would have 340 megawatts of power live and online with servers by the end of 2019,” according to the lawsuit. “That in fact was false.”

The company eventually raised $6.4 million in funds, and the lawsuit alleged that Bloom and his associates then started using investor funds to purchase back their own interests in the company, allegedly draining the company’s assets through disguised loans.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants then purchased an additional 700 acres in Kingman “in order to convince the world that their investment was thriving, when in reality Defendants were raising funds to steal.”

The company bought 132 acres from Aileron Investments for more than $1.1 million, and also purchased about 630 acres from Contrail Holdings for about $5.4 million. Pegasus financed both purchases and agreed to make payments through the proceeds from the cryptocurrency mining, the lawsuit said.

Lawyers for the plaintiff companies alleged that Pegasus did not take steps to develop either property, and did not make any payments towards the property purchases.

In November, District Judge Susan Johnson entered a default judgment against Pegasus in a separate case, awarding more than $865,000 to Aileron and more than $4.1 million to Contrail, plus hundreds of thousands in interest and attorney’s fees.

The default judgment was entered after Pegasus failed to answer a court summons, court records show.

May’s lawsuit was filed against both Pegasus and Bloom as an individual, plus multiple business associates. The complaint alleged that Bloom and his associates treated the company’s assets as their own, paying themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages and spending lavishly on food, travel and entertainment.

“Defendants caused the Pegasus Entities to excrete all funds in their possession to the Defendants, while the Pegasus Entities had little to no operations and no assets to speak of — which permitted Defendants to maximize their own personal gain,” the lawsuit said.

[newsbloggers]

STF HC 88262 segundo julgamento / SP - SÃO PAULO SEG. JULG. HABEAS CORPUS

Habeas Corpus. 2. Crimes de Estelionato. 3. Alegações de: a) ausência de indícios de autoria e materialidade; b) falta de fundamentação da preventiva; c) violação ao princípio do juiz natural; e d) excesso de prazo da prisão preventiva. 4. Prejudicialidade parcial do pedido, o qual prossegue apenas com relação à alegada violação ao princípio do juiz natural. 5. Em princípio, a jurisprudência desta Corte entendia que, para os casos de incompetência absoluta, somente os atos decisórios seriam anulados. Sendo possível, portanto, a ratificação de atos não-decisórios. Precedentes citados: HC nº 71.278/PR, Rel. Min. Néri da Silveira, 2ª Turma, julgado em 31.10.1994, DJ de 27.09.1996 e RHC nº 72.962/GO, Rel. Min. Maurício Corrêa, 2ª Turma, julgado em 12.09.1995, DJ de 20.10.1995. 6. Posteriormente, a partir do julgamento do HC nº 83.006-SP, Pleno, por maioria, Rel. Min. Ellen Gracie, DJ 29.08.2003, a jurisprudência do Tribunal evoluiu para admitir a possibilidade de ratificação pelo juízo competente inclusive quanto aos atos decisórios. 7. Declinada a competência pelo Juízo Estadual, o juízo de origem federal ao ratificar o seqüestro de bens (medida determinada pela justiça comum), fez referência expressa a uma série de indícios plausíveis acerca da origem ilícita dos bens como a incompatibilidade do patrimônio do paciente em relação aos rendimentos declarados. 8. No decreto cautelar, ainda, a manifestação da Juíza da Vara Federal Criminal é expressa no sentido de que, da análise dos autos, há elementos de materialidade do crime e indícios de autoria. 9. Ordem indeferida.

Decisão

A Turma, por votação unânime, indeferiu o pedido de habeas corpus, nos termos do voto do Relator. 2ª Turma, 18.12.2006.

Data do Julgamento : 18/12/2006

Data da Publicação : DJ 30-03-2007 RTJ VOL-00201-02 PP-00682

Órgão Julgador : Segunda Turma

Relator(a) : Min. GILMAR MENDES

Parte(s) : PACTE.(S) : CLEITON SANTOS SANTANA OU CLAITON SANTOS SANTANA IMPTE.(S) : HELIO BIALSKI E OUTRO(A/S) COATOR(A/S)(ES) : RELATOR DO HC Nº 49669 DO SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA