Mediaboss Marketing

Hard though it may be to imagine for anyone who still recalls the 1970s and 1980s, Germanys Deutsche Bank, once upon a time a financial institution with a truly stellar reputation, has become the poster boy for money laundering.

The bank pursued thousands of transactions from its Moscow office amounting to around $10 billion that violated every rule in the book. It has been caught and fined.

The New York Department of Financial Services and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have respectively fined Deutsche $425 million and 163 million for a host of crimes that were initiated by the banks Moscow office.

Beyond the monetary fallout, the damage to Deutsche Banks reputation further compounds the financial problems this once mighty institution confronts.

Official bank regulators will see this case as a model for how to strengthen anti-money laundering enforcement.

For Deutsche Bank, this latest scandal is a major blow. For other global banks, this is a definite warning that the U.S. and the U.K. authorities are taking a much closer look at the legitimacy of international banking transactions. This is long overdue.

One of the first finance leaders I met in Frankfurt on arriving there in 1970 as the new European Business Correspondent for The Times (UK) was Hermann Josef Abs. He was Deutsche Banks venerable chairman emeritus at the time.

His bank dominated its domestic business turf, with huge shareholdings in such giant corporations as Daimler-Benz and Krupp.

To move beyond the home turf, Deutsche subsequently launched a major strategy to become a powerful global bank. Today, Deutsche Bank is in shambles.

Under Abs and a series of subsequent CEOs, the bank secured an excellent reputation for integrity and financial strength. Today, the opposite is the case.

John Cryan is the man who now must bring stability to a fallen institution, let alone seek to revive some of its former glory. His bank posted a loss of 1.9 billion in the final three months of 2016.

Cryan, who joined DB as co-CEO in mid-2015, became the chief executive officer last May. He must move rapidly to restore business profitability, strengthen the capital base and, perhaps most difficult of all, build a new culture among employees.

Deutsche urgently needs to replace its anything goes, ethics-free short-term profit maximization culture with a focus on two core values, trust and honesty.

In the four years to the end of 2015, Deutsche Bank transferred about $10 billion of unknown origin, from Russia to offshore bank accounts in a manner that is highly suggestive of financial crime, according to the FCA.

Very substantial sums of cash were transferred from Moscow through Deutsche Bank in the UK to overseas bank accounts in such places as Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia.

According to the New York state regulator, The bank has conducted its banking business in an unsafe and unsound manner, failing to maintain an effective and compliant anti-money laundering program. The bank failed to maintain and make available true and accurate books, accounts and records reflecting all transactions and actions.

The banks two previous chieftains, Josef Ackermann and Anshu Jain, are responsible for many of the problems the institution now confronts and the lax management culture described in the devastating charges now brought by the New York and U.K. regulators, which Cryan now has to clean up.

Specifically, Deutsche Bank was accused of inadequate customer due diligence, which means it disregarded know-your-customer (KYC) rules. These rules demand that banks only accept deposits when the customer can prove the legal origin of the funds.

In a finding that would have left former CEOs like Abs speechless and shell-shocked, the regulators reviewed Deutsches anti-money laundering policies and procedures and found them deficient. DBs customer and country risk rating methodologies were flawed.

Managing and restructuring anti-money laundering management systems in a major bank is a very substantial and costly task and DB is bound now to make wholesale reforms.

Other major banks, if prudent, should be reviewing their own systems.

Some may believe that President Donald Trump, with his declared opposition to business regulation, will restrain the zeal of U.S. banking regulators.

This may not be the case, however, when it comes to money laundering given White House concerns about terrorism, including illicit financing of terrorist actions.

Read more:
Deutsche Bank's Culture Wars - The Globalist

Update 8:05p.m. EST: The test was right. ItsNeil Gorsuch.

President Donald Trump is delivering his Supreme Court nomination in his typical showman fashion, summoning histop choices to Washington D.C. Tuesday night ahead of the scheduled announcement. While his team intends to keep the country standing by to see who gets the nod, Vocativ decided to do some digging.

A pretty good predictor of future news events, it turns out, is Wikipedia.As we found back in July when Hillary Clinton announced her running mate, Tim Kaine thanks to a little trick uncovered by theWashington Post found back in 2008 edit histories on the encyclopedia site can be a propitious tell.

The theory here is that Washington insiders working for sources in the know double down on any Wikipedia cleanup or additions necessary before a relatively unknown name splashed across the headlines sends the public looking for more information.

If that method proves to work once again in the case of the next SCOTUS nomination, it would seem that Neil Gorsuch, a 49-year-old judge out of Colorado, is your next nominee.

Of course,its tough to say just how reliable this approach in this case, especially considering that a great deal of the most recent edits made to Gorsuchs page came from thethe same IP addressediting the page for Thomas Hardiman, the other potential choice. Plus, its always possible that given Trumps penchant for erratic, last-minute decision making both judges pages are undergoing a lot of scrutiny, since both will be in the news after the announcement.

Edits to both candidates entriesmade within the past week were pretty major, delving into the two candidates personal lives, notable rulings, stances on issueslike immigration, abortion rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and providing a general cleanup.

Gorsuchs Wikipedia page, which now has 4.7 times as many words as it did Jan. 12, 2016, no longer features his book on euthanasia (which he does not support) as prominently. It now focuses much more on full scope of his professional accomplishments.

Gorsuch currently serves on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where hemade his namesupporting an exception to the contraception mandate within the Affordable Care Act in the now-famous Hobby Lobby case. In many ways, his political viewpoints on other hot-button issuesand approach to interpreting the Constitution as it was understood when it was written are similar to that of the late Antonin Scalia, whose seat he could fill.

Hardiman, 51, who currently serves in Philadelphia on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the same court where Trumps sister currently serves as a senior judge), is seen as more centrist than Gorsuch.

Still, his Wikipedia page now notes that throughout the course of his career, he has worked against Department of Housing and Urban Development to reduce the number of low income homes in a Pittsburgh suburb,fought against the separation of church and state in the form of a courthouse plaque bearing the Ten Commandments, and sided with an anti-abortion protestor who refused to leave his post while violating a permit. Earlier on in the month, a much shorter version of Hardimans Wikipedia page featured only brief descriptions of notable cases and included now-missing details of his biography, like his work in private practice and his involvement with Big Brother Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh.

Read more:
Wikipedia Test Works: Gorsuch Is Supreme Court Nominee - Vocativ

BY: David Rutz February 3, 2017 10:41 am

Liberal MSNBC host Al Sharpton said Wednesday that Senate Democrats should give "the big payback"to Republicans over President Trump's Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Sharpton argued that Republicans refusing to give a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee last year, merited similar treatment by Democrats for the "very conservative" Gorsuch, Breitbart reported.

"He's being nominated to sit in Garland's seat," Sharpton said. "President Barack Obama nominated Judge Garland, who has got as much or more qualifications as this nominee, to have been the Supreme Court judge They stalled, they filibustered, they would not even give a hearing to Judge Garland. It is time for the Democrats now to say since you changed the rules, you're going to have to live by the rules that you applied to President Obama's nominee, and we are not going to allow you to change it, and we will use those rules to block this nominee, Judge Gorsuch."

"The Bible says that you sow thatthat same thing shall you also reap. But Bill Bellamy had a better ideathey should come in the Senate and replay The Big Payback,' James Brown song," Sharpton continued. "Bill was right, just take one of them old blasters, Chuck Schumer, and blast out The Big Payback.' You took my judge. That ain't right. Wouldn't give a hearing. You know that I'm tightthe big payback."

However, Democrats were in the minority last year and failed to recapture the Senatein the 2016 election. As such, it is expected that Gorsuch will ascend to the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) can invoke the "nuclear option," which would eliminate the Democrats' ability to filibuster Gorsuch's nomination should they choose to do so. With the GOP holding 52 seats, Gorsuch could then be confirmed with a simple majority.

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia a year ago touched off a debate in 2016 over whether Supreme Court nominees should be acted on in an election year. Republicans cited then-Sen. Joe Biden's declaration in 1992 that no Supreme Court nomination should be made by President George H.W. Bush until after that November's election. Democrats angrily called on the Republicans to "do their job" and give Garland a hearing, but they did not budge.

Read more from the original source:
Sharpton: Schumer Needs to Give Republicans 'The Big Payback' Over Gorsuch Nomination - Washington Free Beacon

If youve been wondering where Grammy- and Oscar-winning rapper Eminem disappeared to and, seriously, who hasnt? wonder no more.

The rapper, aka Slim Shady, aka Marshall Mathers, has resurfaced on a new record by Big Sean, a fellow Detroit native. Em appears back to his standard trick: rage-fueled name-dropping. His target this time around?

Who else? President Donald Trump.

He calls the president a b**** and drops some bombs about conservative firebrand Ann Coulter while hes at it, with lyrics that are so crude and foul were not going to repeat them here.

Em has kept a low profile in recent years, especially considering how prolific he was 15 years ago, when his film debut "8 Mile" earned his single "Lose Yourself" an Oscar for Best Song. He spent those years calling out pretty much everybody, from his mother (played in the film by actress Kim Basinger), to the mother of his daughter Haley, to Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit front man Fred Durst (remember him/them?). It's safe to say this shtick played a large part in catapulting him to the top of the charts.

Can lightning strike twice? Fact is, the artist would scoff at the notion. He'd say it's already struck countless times, and if anyone disagreed he really doesn't even care. Essentially rap's Axl Rose, Eminem can do whatever he wants at this point in his career, which suggests his rapping these particular lyrics about Coulter is something that just might have been thrust before him.

By Big Sean himself? His producer? Someone else?

Or perhaps this is just more discontentedness from liberal celebrities, coupled with their increasing penchant for calling for violence. Madonna talked about blowing up the White House, DeNiro talked about punching Trump in the face, Scott Baio has been attacked physically not once but twice and recent violence at UC Berkeley suggest the Left won't be satisfied until there is some very real unrest on the streets.

Related: Rioting, Violence on Parents' Dime at UC Berkeley

Despite the occasional celebrity calling for calm (Matthew McConaughey, for example, was quoted earlier this week saying that "we need to embrace President Trump"), there are 10 times that amount calling for civil unrest, and in the face of opposition, out-and-out violence.

Regarding UC Berkeley, protests erupted there on Wednesday ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, causing $100,000 worth of damage to the campus. The school released that figure on Thursday, and blamed "150 masked agitators" for it, saying they had "come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest."

Related: Michael Moore: Women Trump Voters Are Victims

Then two members of the Berkeley College Republicans "were attacked while conducting an interview" on the campus on Thursday.

So the question remains: Was Eminem called into action as a pop culture icon known for inflammatory lyrics spat out at a rapid-fire pace? Or did he merely see President Trump as an opportunity to become relevant again? How well the song charts might be the only answer to that question that we ever get.

More here:
Eminem Curses Trump, Raps About Sexual Assaults Against Ann Coulter - LifeZette

|

Posted: Feb 01, 2017 7:08 PM

Everything said about President Trump's "Muslim ban" is a lie -- including that it's a Muslim ban.

The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: "cruelty ... injury ... suffering ... bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating ... breathtaking ... inflammatory ... callousness and indifference" -- and that's from a single editorial!

Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it's illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.

For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as "refugees." Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a "refugee," to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.

This may have been good policy, but let's not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.

If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes "targeting" Muslims, then our immigration policy "targeted" Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.

Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!

According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute's David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump's executive order is "illegal" because the 1965 immigration act "banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin."

In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any "expert" in a storm, I guess.)

In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America's immigration policy -- in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.

Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: "We have made a mockery" of refugee law, "because of politics and pressure." We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.

As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described "diversity" in Der Spiegel: "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

That's our immigration policy -- plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus' insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)

Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence -- in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.

The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)

For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times' glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times' 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)

Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can't we demand that of all our immigrants?

To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist -- in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured "Immigrant of the Week," on May 1, 2012.)

Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?

House Speaker Paul Ryan's driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers' lickspittle) is "entitlement reform," i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.

I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in "Adios, America!" by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps' names.)

Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times' baby seals -- an Iraqi with diabetes and "a respiratory ailment" -- was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.

That's not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.

While it's fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren't terrorists, the downside is: They're not refugees, they're not brilliant, they don't have a constitutional right to come here and they're very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

Read the original post:
Give Me Your Tired Arguments - Ann Coulter - Townhall - Townhall