Conor McGregor loses appeal in civil sexual assault case
In November, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found McGregor liable for assaulting Nikita Hand, who says he 'brutally raped and battered' her in a hotel penthouse in 2018. He was ordered to pay Hand almost 250,000 euros ($285,000), as well as about 1.3 million euros ($1.5 million) in legal costs.
Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor in civil court after prosecutors declined to bring charges, saying there was insufficient evidence and a conviction was unlikely.
4 Conor McGregor lost his legal appeal in July 2025 stemming from a sexual assault case.
PA Images via Getty Images
4 He was joined by partner Dee Devlin at a Dublin court in November 2024.
Sportsfile via Getty Images
The Associated Press generally does not name alleged victims of sexual violence unless they come forward publicly, as Hand has done.
McGregor alleged that Hand fabricated the allegations after the two had consensual sex. He launched an appeal, but at a hearing earlier this month his lawyer unexpectedly withdrew a request to introduce new evidence.
Three appeals court judges in Dublin on Thursday dismissed the appeal 'in its entirety.'
4 Conor McGregor was once the face of UFC.
Zuffa LLC via Getty Images
4 He made an appearance at the White House in March 2025.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Hand was in court for the ruling, but McGregor was not.
The 37-year-old fighter, once the face of the Ultimate Fighting Championship but now past his prime in the ring, has become known for anti-immigration statements and criticism of Irish politicians. He has flirted with the idea of running for president of Ireland.
U.S. President Donald Trump, a UFC fan, invited McGregor to the White House to mark St. Patrick's Day in March.
McGregor also faces a lawsuit in Florida for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in the bathroom of the Kaseya Center, home arena of the Miami Heat, during a 2023 NBA finals game with the Denver Nuggets.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said he's "thinking about" eliminating the federal capital gains tax on home sales, in a move that experts are welcoming while warning that it would favor wealthier homeowners more than anyone else. "We are thinking tax on capital gains on houses," Trump told the press on July 22, showing support for a proposal that was first floated by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. While it is not yet clear whether any real change would come out of either Greene's bill—the "No Tax on Home Sales Act"—or Trump's suggestion, experts already estimate that the change would benefit wealthy American homeowners over low-to-mid-earning buyers, exacerbating existing inequality in the U.S. housing market. Even so, most agree that a revision of the current capital gains tax system is urgently needed to address the current housing affordability issues. What Is the Capital Gains Tax on Home Sales? Homeowners who sell a home on which they have realized a significant capital gain, meaning that they are now selling it for more than they originally purchased it for themselves, are likely to pay a federal capital gains tax on part of that gain. This is true for long-term homeowners, while those offloading a property within a year of buying it won't have to pay capital gains on the sale. Homeowners who have lived in a home as their primary residence for at least 24 months in the five years before the sale receive an exemption on the first $250,000 of gains for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "Put simply, the number of homeowners who pay capital gains taxes on a sale is limited due to these exclusions, but there's a big catch," Chief Economist Danielle Hale said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "This exclusion was put into place in 1997 and was not indexed for inflation. If it had merely been indexed for inflation when originally enacted, those exclusions would be more than twice as large as they are today ($506k and $1.13M)," she said. "And home price increases have outpaced inflation in many of those years, further eroding the value of the exclusions." As it is, Hale said, "the cap is most likely to be a problem for homeowners in high-cost states where home prices have appreciated sharply, like California and Massachusetts. "It may also be an issue for those with above-median priced homes in lower cost states, especially in areas where home prices have increased rapidly and if the homeowners have lived in their homes for an extended period of time, which is more common for older homeowners," she added. But as property values have skyrocketed since the pandemic homebuying frenzy, more and more homeowners across the country are finding themselves realizing high capital gains, whether they are in expensive areas of the U.S. or not. How Would Its Elimination Impact the U.S. Housing Market? Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told Newsweek that her group welcomes any proposal addressing "the outdated capital gains thresholds hurting American homeowners." According to McGahn, "this is no longer just a concern for high-end properties," but one that is likely to affect more and more American homeowners in the near future. NAR's research has found that nearly 29 million homeowners, roughly one-third of the market, already face potential capital gains taxes if they sell, "and that number is expected to climb sharply over the next decade," McGahn said. By 2035, nearly 70 percent of homeowners could exceed the $250,000 cap, according to NAR, "including many middle-class families who've simply owned their homes for a long time in fast-growing markets," McGahn said. "These tax burdens create a 'lock-in effect,' especially for seniors, discouraging people from selling and keeping much-needed homes off the market," she said. Increasing the exclusion or eliminating the capital gains tax for home sellers "could enable those who would otherwise face a steep tax bill to sell and downsize or relocate, potentially opening up housing inventory in some of the highest-cost housing markets," Hale said. "Otherwise, the current tax structure actually incentivizes homeowners who may be facing a large capital gains tax bill to stay in their homes until they die—even if the home is no longer a good fit for their needs," she added. "This is because when a homeowner passes away, the home receives what's called a stepped-up basis—the amount used to calculate capital gains is reset to the current market value, essentially eliminating any outstanding capital gains liability for individuals with a similar but more nuanced result for surviving spouses." According to McGahn, eliminating capital gains on home sales is about fairness. "A homeowner shouldn't be taxed like an investor," she said. "This is about protecting equity and helping the entire market function more efficiently. President Trump's comments reflect growing momentum for reform, and we're encouraged to see this issue gaining attention at the highest levels." But other experts are skeptical of the impact that eliminating capital gains on home sales could have on American homeowners right now. "Long-term homeowners in markets that rapidly appreciated over the last 5+ years may feel an additional burden, which could discourage them from selling. However, these taxes generally apply to a relatively small subset of sellers, and are not likely influencing the broader market too severely," Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at previously told Newsweek. "For sellers in low-to-mid priced markets, the current exclusion is sufficient. The national median listing price was $441,000 in June, which is less than the $500,000 joint exclusion, meaning the typical U.S. home seller is not subject to capital gains tax if filing jointly," she said. There are also some potential downsides to consider that may follow a potential abolition of the federal capital gains tax on home sales. "Ongoing affordability issues could be exacerbated by abolishing this tax as it could fuel demand and lead to a more competitive housing market, especially where supply is constrained," Jones said. "Removing this tax would favor wealthy owners which could worsen equity inequality and make the market even more challenging for low-to-mid earning buyers."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
ST Explains: What is judicial mercy, and how does it apply to Ong Beng Seng's case?
SINGAPORE – Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng pleaded guilty to one count of abetting the obstruction of justice on Aug 4. Both the defence and the prosecution noted that a fine in lieu of jail would be appropriate as he has advanced multiple myeloma, which is an incurable cancer. His lawyers urged the court to exercise judicial mercy and impose a fine with no prison time. The prosecution did not object to this, noting that even if the court did not exercise judicial mercy, there was basis for it to consider Ong's ill-health as a mitigating factor for a significant reduction of sentence. What is judicial mercy? Judicial mercy is the discretionary power of Singapore's courts to give a more lenient sentence because of exceptional mitigating circumstances. It has a high threshold, and so far has been exercised in only two types of situations. The first is where the offender is suffering from terminal illness. The second is where the offender is so ill that jail time would carry a high risk of endangering his or her life. The High Court previously said that when judicial mercy is exercised, the central consideration by the court is not the culpability of the offender. Instead, the sentence will be based on humanitarian considerations. These must outweigh public interests in punishing the offender for his crime. This is distinctly different from when ill-health is considered as a mitigating factor. The High Court said judicial mercy is to be invoked only sparingly. Previous cases where it was invoked saw no imprisonment, or a nominal period of imprisonment, or the statutory minimum. Difference between judicial mercy and ill-health as mitigating factor Judicial mercy has a higher threshold than ill-health as a mitigating factor. When judicial mercy is invoked, the main consideration for sentencing becomes one of humanity. When the courts pass sentences with ill-health considered as a mitigating factor, the central consideration is still the public interest in punishing one for the offence committed. The punishment would remain proportional to the offender's culpability, but may be reduced at the discretion of the court. The courts have exercised judicial mercy in cases where the offender has not long left to live or when prison time would pose a significant risk to the offender's life. Cancer-stricken woman In 2020, the court fined a woman $5,000 instead of jailing her for a week for contempt of court. The mother of two had breached court orders relating to divorce proceedings with her former husband. She had turned her children on him and harmed his reputation. The court granted judicial mercy, noting that the woman had stage 4 breast cancer, was using a wheelchair and weighed only 30kg. Six months to live In 2018, a man who managed a coffee shop had a three-week prison sentence cut to a $250 fine after he was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live. Lam Kim Heng, then 68, had tried to bribe a building inspection officer with a pack of cigarettes. But three weeks after sentencing, he found out he had acute myeloid leukaemia. The High Court granted judicial mercy when it heard his appeal about three months after the diagnosis. Former Tangs chairman's kidney scandal In 2008, then Tangs chairman Tang Wee Sung was jailed for a day and fined $17,000 for attempting to buy a kidney. He suffered from multiple medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease. Tang had to undergo dialysis six days a week, and had extremely detailed checks, injections and medication daily. The court granted him judicial mercy. Tang underwent a kidney transplant in 2009 and died in 2022. Molester with nose cancer In 2006, a convicted molester was granted judicial mercy on appeal and had his original sentence of four months' jail and three strokes of the cane replaced with a $5,000 fine. Chng Yew Chin, then 43, had molested his maid. But he appealed and a doctor told the court he could not be cured and had little time left. The court granted him judicial mercy, saying his cancer was a far harsher sentence that would kill him in the near future. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction Discover how to enjoy other premium articles here
