Belgium prosecutors launch probe into local Worldline unit
0
Shares in French giant Worldline plummeted on Wednesday after a "Dirty Payments" investigation, which was led by the European journalism network EIC and 21 media outlets, alleged the company covered up client fraud to protect revenue.
Now, the Brussels Public prosecutor says it has opened an investigation, entrusted to the Federal Judicial Police, amid claims that Worldline processed payments for companies involved in illegal activities.
In a statement to Reuters, Worldline says it will cooperate with the authorities.
Worldline has strongly defended itself against the allegations, stating that it has conducted a "thorough review" of its high-brand-risk portfolio, such as online casinos, stockbroking and adult dating services, since 2023.
It added that it maintains "zero-tolerance" for non-compliance and engages regularly with regulatory authorities.
In a call with analysts reported by Bloomberg, CEO Pierre-Antoine Vacheron, said Worldline had been 'attacked' by the media, and that there was 'nothing new' in the reports aside from an 'unacceptable narrative'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zero-hours contacts will be illegal in two years
The government's landmark Employment Rights Bill, described by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer as a significant upgrade to workers' rights, will be implemented through a phased rollout extending until 2027. Key provisions, such as a ban on exploitative zero-hours contracts and 'day-one' protections against unfair dismissal, are scheduled to come into full effect in 2027. Immediate changes upon the Bill's royal assent include the repeal of Conservative-era industrial action restrictions and new protections for striking workers. Further reforms, including enhanced sick pay, 'day-one' paternity leave, and measures to end 'fire and rehire' practices, are slated for April and October 2026. The phased approach aims to give businesses ample time to prepare, a move welcomed by business groups, while union leaders urge earlier adoption of the changes and the Conservative opposition criticises the delay.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Macquarie digs deeper for redemption at Southern Water. There was no alternative
Many took the view in 2021 that Macquarie should have been run out of town, rather than be allowed to own another English water company. The giant Australian financial outfit's former outing, remember, was at Thames Water from 2006 to 2017, which was when the absurd games of financial leverage began at the UK's biggest water company. The then-chair of Ofwat later told MPs he asked himself the question 'What do we do here, with that reputation?' when Macquarie made the best financial offer to rescue Southern Water. The deal was done eventually with Ofwat's blessing. Macquarie-managed funds injected £1bn to take control and its infrastructure boss declared in an open letter that the firm would be 'a responsible long-term steward of Southern Water and believes it can help the company deliver the transformation it requires'. Part of that statement – the bit about being in it for the long term – is clearly true. Macquarie is now rescuing Southern for a third time, in effect. An extra £550m was injected in 2023. Now its consortium (of which it and its managed funds are about 90%) is putting in up to £1.2bn in equity to recapitalise Southern's operating company. The process is convoluted since only £655m is binding; a further £245m is intended to follow by the end of the year and the balance of £300m depends of the outcome of Southern's appeal to try to secure bigger bill increases than the 53% allowed by Ofwat. But, in the shoes of the regulator or a fearful secretary of state, Steve Reed, you'd be breathing a sigh of relief. Their nightmare was the thought that the current refinancing crisis at Thames would spill over to Southern, the next most stressed operator. Instead, Southern should now have sufficient capital to get it through the current five-year regulatory period. Unlike at Thames, the fisticuffs with bondholders took place behind closed doors. Lenders are taking a write-down from £865m to £415m across the complicated holding company group structure in what is a mini debt-for-equity swap to supplement the new capital. Macquarie's approach to transparency didn't extend to giving a leverage ratio for the regulated entity in recapitalised form – a critical metric – but the ratio is obviously lower than it was before the deal. Yet the Australian attempt at watery redemption is not quite the upbeat tale of emerging success presented in Tuesday's announcement. The claimed 'good progress' with Southern's transformation plan requires a large helping of context. Yes, pollution incidents may be down by 40%, but the top executives are still on Reed's banned list for bonuses on account of spills. Meanwhile, the company got a two-star rating in the Environment Agency's last assessment report – better than the one star Macquarie inherited, but still equal bottom-of-the-table. Ofwat's separate performance scorecard noted that in 2023-24 Southern 'reported the largest percentage net underperformance payment for a fourth consecutive year.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Those regulatory reports are almost a year old, so maybe the next annual crop will provide evidence of the 'momentum' behind the turnaround. Until then, however, Macquarie has merely demonstrated it can cough up capital when there is no realistic alternative. On-the-ground operational delivery is what counts. There is a long way to go. If the exercise is costing more than Macquarie expected in 2021, sympathy may be limited.
Sky News
42 minutes ago
- Sky News
Conor McGregor's legal team withdraws bid to introduce fresh evidence in appeal against civil case decision
The legal team for mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor has withdrawn a bid to introduce fresh evidence in his appeal against a decision in a civil case in which a woman accused him of raping her. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, sued the Irish sports star over an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. The 36-year-old was said to have "brutally raped and battered" Ms Hand in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand was awarded €248,603.60 (about £206,000) in damages. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand €100,000 (£85,000) of the damages and €200,000 (£170,000) of an expected €1.3m (£1.1m) in legal costs before the appeal, which the court heard had been done. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor has since sought an appeal, which was initially expected to include new evidence. However, on Tuesday morning, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, his legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was "frankly not appropriate" for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been "put through the wringer yet again" and that the court should not permit the appellant to "waltz in here and then they can walk away from this". Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said it cannot be the case that further submissions relating to Professor Crane could solely be the reason to withdraw the appeal matter of the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a "holistic view" of the whole case and after taking instructions. Ms Justice Kennedy said it was "unsatisfactory" that it was being brought to the court at a late stage, but permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal - largely relating to the right to silence and "no comment" answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an "enormous amount of no comment material" had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 "no comment" answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. This was a good old-fashioned courtroom bombshell. Nikita Hand arrived at the Four Courts with her partner, walking past a rolling maul of TV cameras and photographers and a group of supporters with a large "We Stand With Nikita Hand" banner. The media – not expecting Conor McGregor himself to attend – were on high alert for the arrival of the two new witnesses, Samantha O'Reilly and Steven Cummins. Former neighbours of Ms Hand, they were expected to tell the court that they may have witnessed her being assaulted by her partner after the hotel encounter with McGregor – explaining her subsequent bruising. But they did not arrive. Inside the small, packed court it immediately became apparent why. McGregor's legal team said they were withdrawing the fresh evidence – there were audible gasps and startled looks exchanged among the benches. The testimony of the neighbours had filled reams of Irish newsprint in the weeks ahead of this highly-anticipated appeal – now it was discarded immediately for various legal reasons. Ms Hand's counsel was furious – demanding an apology and muttering the word 'perjury'. He had only found out 10 minutes earlier, he declared – an unacceptable situation. Ms Hand had "been put through the wringer" by all of this, he said. The mixed martial arts fighter's appeal is now proceeding, but on reduced grounds. As so often with Conor McGregor, whether in an octagon or a courtroom, the unexpected is never far away. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur - and was in itself based on an "entirely incorrect" paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to "get everything correct" in seeking out the "best advice" from his solicitors - rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said the plaintiff had used this to construct a "hook" that McGregor had said he wanted to tell everything to gardai, adding: "With respect, that's not what it says." Mr Farrell said it was not the case that McGregor had said he had told gardai everything.
