Credit Suisse penalized more than $510 million for helping wealthy US clients evade taxes
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Credit Suisse Services AG will pay more than $510 million in penalties for its part in aiding U.S. taxpayers in skirting the IRS through offshore accounts.
The more than $510 million in "penalties, restitution, forfeiture and fines" that Credit Suisse Services AG must pay are part of a guilty plea and non-prosecution agreement that the now UBS-owned bank entered on Monday for "conspiring" to hide more than $4 billion worth of assets held by some rich clients via several hundred offshore accounts, according to the DOJ.
Credit Suisse Services AG "conspired with employees, U.S. customers, and others to willfully aid U.S. customers in concealing their ownership and control of assets and funds held at the bank" during the 11.5-year period between January 2010 and July 2021, the DOJ said.
The logo of Swiss bank Credit Suisse at its headquarters in Zurich on March 24, 2021.
During that time, the bank allowed extremely wealthy U.S. customers to have "undeclared" offshore accounts and furnished them with "offshore private banking services" that facilitated hiding assets from the IRS and "continued failure to file FBARs," measures that violated a previous 2014 plea agreement, according to the DOJ.
Credit Suisse's non-prosecution agreement, the DOJ said, centers on "undeclared accounts" for American taxpayers worth over $2 billion held at Credit Suisse AG Singapore from 2014 through June 2023.
The DOJ said UBS "became aware of the accounts held at Credit Suisse AG Singapore that appeared to be undeclared U.S. accounts" after it acquired the rival bank and "voluntarily" supplied the DOJ with information on them.
Read On The Fox Business App
The Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2022.
Credit Suisse Services AG and owner UBS have agreed to cooperate with "ongoing investigations" and provide any further information about U.S. accounts that may arise, as part of its guilty plea and non-prosecution agreement, according to the DOJ.
In 2014, Credit Suisse became the largest bank in 20 years to plead guilty to a U.S. criminal charge, agreeing to pay a $2.5 billion fine for helping Americans evade taxes in a conspiracy that spanned decades.
Chinese Community Leader-businessman In New York Convicted As Illegal Agent Of The Ccp In 'Fox Hunt' Scheme
Before Monday's settlement, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in 2023 had found Credit Suisse violated its 2014 deal made with U.S. authorities by continuing to help with tax evasion and concealing more than $700 million from the government.
UBS said on Monday that Credit Suisse Services AG pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to aid and assist in the preparation of false income tax returns.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
8 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In the Arizona desert, a farm raising fish raises questions about water use
DATELAND, Ariz. (AP) — Storks scatter, white against blue water, as Dan Mohring's pickup truck rumbles down the dirt road. He's towing a trailer full of ground-up beef, chicken, fish and nutrient bits behind him, ready to be shot out of a cannon into the ponds below. It's time to feed the fish. Mohring fires up the machine and the food flies out in a rainbow arc. Then the water comes alive. Hundreds of thrashing, gobbling barramundi wiggle their way to the surface, all fighting for a piece. Until, in a few months, they will become food themselves. In the desert of landlocked Arizona, where the Colorado River crisis has put water use under a microscope, Mainstream Aquaculture has a fish farm where it's growing the tropical species barramundi, also known as Asian sea bass, for American restaurants. Mainstream sees it as a sustainable alternative to ocean-caught seafood. They say chefs and conscious consumers like that the food has a shorter distance to travel, eliminating some of the pollution that comes from massive ships that move products around the world. And they and some aquaculture experts argue it's efficient to use the water twice, since the nutrient-rich leftovers can irrigate crops like Bermuda grass sold for livestock feed. 'We're in the business of water,' said Matt Mangan, head of Australia-based Mainstream's American business. 'We want to be here in 20 years', 30 years' time.' But some experts question whether growing fish on a large scale in an arid region can work without high environmental costs. That question comes down to what people collectively decide is a good use of water. In Arizona, some places manage water more aggressively than others. But the whole state is dealing with the impacts of climate change, which is making the region drier and water only more precious. The farm uses groundwater, not Colorado River water. It's a nonrenewable resource, and like mining, different people and industries have different philosophies about whether it should be extracted. 'As long as groundwater is treated as an open resource in these rural parts of Arizona, they're susceptible to new industries coming in and using the groundwater for that industry,' said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University's Morrison Institute. Some scientists believe aquaculture can play a role in protecting wild ocean ecosystems from overfishing. And it might play at least a small role in smoothing any supply problems that result from the Trump administration's tariffs on imports from dozens of countries, including those that send the U.S. about 80% of its seafood, per the United States Department of Agriculture. A two-for-one deal? In the greenhouses at University of Arizona professor Kevin Fitzsimmons' lab in Tucson, tilapia circle idly in tanks that filter down into tubs full of mussels and floating patches of collard greens and lettuce. Fitzsimmons mentored the student who started the tilapia farm eventually bought by Mainstream about three years ago where they now raise barramundi. 'I don't think desert agriculture is going away," he said. 'Obviously, we want to do it as water-efficient as possible." But not everyone agrees it's possible. 'Artificial ponds in the desert are stupid,' said Jay Famiglietti, a professor at ASU and director of science for the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative. He worried about heavy water losses to evaporation. Mangan says that evaporation hasn't been an issue so much as the loss of heat in the wintertime. That has required pumping more water since its warmth when it arrives at the surface helps keep the barramundi cozy. But Mangan says they've been improving pond design to retain heat better and have found, after the last year of research and development, that they can cut their water requirement by about half as a result. Plus, he argues, the water coming out of the fish ponds is "essentially liquid fertilizer," and though it's slightly salty, they use it for crops that can tolerate it, like Bermuda grass dairy cows can eat. But that's supporting the cattle industry, which contributes more than its share of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, Famiglietti said. 'Doing two suboptimal things doesn't make it better,' he said. Defining a 'reasonable' use of groundwater, a finite resource Purple flowers sprout alongside paddle wheels. Fish bones crunch underfoot. The faint odor of brackish water and ammonia catches in the breeze. Without groundwater, none of it would be possible. Some farmers in Arizona rely on water from the Colorado River, but many others use well water to irrigate crops like alfalfa for the dairy industry or the lettuce, cucumbers and melons shipped nationwide year-round. Arizona has seven areas around the state where groundwater is rigorously managed. Dateland doesn't fall into one of those, so the only rule that really governs it is a law saying if you land own there, you can pump a 'reasonable' amount of groundwater, said Rhett Larson, who teaches water law at ASU. What might be considered 'reasonable' depends from crop to crop, and there's really no precedent for aquaculture, an industry that hasn't yet spread commercially statewide. Using numbers provided by Mainstream, Porter calculated that the fish farm would demand a 'very large amount' of water, on par with a big ranch or potentially even more than some suburbs of Phoenix. And she noted that although the water use is being maximized by using it twice, it's still depleting the aquifer. When the company scoped out Arizona to expand, Mangan said they didn't see nearly the same kinds of regulations as back in Australia. As part of its growth strategy, Mainstream is also hoping to work with other farmers in the area so more can use nutrient-rich fish pond wastewater to produce hay. They say a few have expressed interest. An alternative to wild-caught fish The seafood industry needs to reduce its reliance on catching small wild fish to feed bigger farmed ones that humans eat, said Pallab Sarker, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies sustainability in the aquaculture industry. He said seabirds and mammals rely on small species like anchovies and mackerel commonly used in fish meal. 'We should not rely on ocean fish to grow fish for aquaculture to meet the demand for humans,' Sarker said. Mainstream gets its fish feed from two suppliers, Skretting and Star Milling, but Mangan and Mohring said they didn't know for certain where those suppliers got their base ingredients from. Fitzsimmons, of the University of Arizona, also pointed out that between pollution, overfishing and oceanfront development for recreation, the commercial fishing industry had already been facing problems. He doesn't think that Trump's moves this spring to open up marine protected areas for commercial fishing will improve that situation the way aquaculture could. 'We can't keep hunting and gathering from the ocean,' Fitzsimmons said. ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Newspaper That Hired ChatGPT
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. For more than 20 years, print media has been a bit of a punching bag for digital-technology companies. Craigslist killed the paid classifieds, free websites led people to think newspapers and magazines were committing robbery when they charged for subscriptions, and the smartphone and social media turned reading full-length articles into a chore. Now generative AI is in the mix—and many publishers, desperate to avoid being left behind once more, are rushing to harness the technology themselves. Several major publications, including The Atlantic, have entered into corporate partnerships with OpenAI and other AI firms. Any number of experiments have ensued—publishers have used the software to help translate work into different languages, draft headlines, and write summaries or even articles. But perhaps no publication has gone further than the Italian newspaper Il Foglio. For one month, beginning in late March, Il Foglio printed a daily insert consisting of four pages of AI-written articles and headlines. Each day, Il Foglio's top editor, Claudio Cerasa, asked ChatGPT Pro to write articles on various topics—Italian politics, J. D. Vance, AI itself. Two humans reviewed the outputs for mistakes, sometimes deciding to leave in minor errors as evidence of AI's fallibility and, at other times, asking ChatGPT to rewrite an article. The insert, titled Il Foglio AI, was almost immediately covered by newspapers around the world. 'It's impossible to hide AI,' Cerasa told me recently. 'And you have to understand that it's like the wind; you have to manage it.' Now the paper—which circulates about 29,000 copies each day, in addition to serving its online readership—plans to embrace AI-written content permanently, issuing a weekly AI section and, on occasion, using ChatGPT to write articles for the standard paper. (These articles will always be labeled.) Cerasa has already used the technology to generate fictional debates, such as an imagined conversation between a conservative and a progressive cardinal on selecting a new pope; a review of the columnist Beppe Severgnini's latest book, accompanied by Severgnini's AI-written retort; the chatbot's advice on what to do if you suspect you're falling in love with a chatbot ('Do not fall in love with me'); and an interview with Cerasa himself, conducted by ChatGPT. Il Foglio's AI work is full-fledged and transparently so: natural and artificial articles, clearly divided. Meanwhile, other publications provide limited, or sometimes no, insight into their usage of the technology, and some have even mixed AI and human writing without disclosure. As if to demonstrate how easily the commingling of AI and journalism can go sideways, just days after Cerasa and I first spoke, at least two major regional American papers published a spread of more than 50 pages titled 'Heat Index,' which was riddled with errors and fabrications; a freelancer who'd contributed to the project admitted to using ChatGPT to generate at least some portions of the text, resulting in made-up book titles and expert sources who didn't actually exist. The result was an embarrassing example of what can result when the technology is used to cut corners. [Read: At least two newspapers syndicated AI garbage] With so many obvious pitfalls to using AI, I wanted to speak with Cerasa to understand more about his experiment. Over Zoom, he painted an unsettling, if optimistic, portrait of his experience with AI in journalism. Sure, the technology is flawed. It's prone to fabrications; his staff has caught plenty of them, and has been taken to task for publishing some of those errors. But when used correctly, it writes well—at times more naturally, Cerasa told me, than even his human staff. Still, there are limits. 'Anyone who tries to use artificial intelligence to replace human intelligence ends up failing,' he told me when I asked about the 'Heat Index' disaster. 'AI is meant to integrate, not replace.' The technology can benefit journalism, he said, 'only if it's treated like a new colleague—one that needs to be looked after.' The problem, perhaps, stems from using AI to substitute rather than augment. In journalism, 'anyone who thinks AI is a way to save money is getting it wrong,' Cerasa said. But economic anxiety has become the norm for the field. A new robot colleague could mean one, or three, or 10 fewer human ones. What, if anything, can the rest of the media learn from Il Foglio's approach? Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Matteo Wong: In your first experiment with AI, you hid AI-written articles in your paper for a month and asked readers if they could detect them. How did that go? What did you learn? Claudio Cerasa: A year ago, for one month, every day we put in our newspaper an article written with AI, and we asked our readers to guess which article was AI-generated, offering the prize of a one-year subscription and a bottle of champagne. The experiment helped us create better prompts for the AI to write an article, and helped us humans write better articles as well. Sometimes an article written by people was seen as an article written by AI: for instance, when an article is written with numbered points—first, second, third. So we changed something in how we write too. Wong: Did anybody win? Cerasa: Yes, we offered a lot of subscriptions and champagne. More than that, we realized we needed to speak about AI not just in our newspaper, but all over the world. We created this thing that is important not only because it is journalism with AI, but because it combines the oldest way to do information, the newspaper, and the newest, artificial intelligence. Wong: How did your experience of using ChatGPT change when you moved from that original experiment to a daily imprint entirely written with AI? Cerasa: The biggest thing that has changed is our prompt. At the beginning, my prompt was very long, because I had to explain a lot of things: You have to write an article with this style, with this number of words, with these ideas. Now, after a lot of use of ChatGPT, it knows better what I want to do. When you start to use, in a transparent way, artificial intelligence, you have a personal assistant: a new person that works in the newspaper. It's like having another brain. It's a new way to do journalism. Wong: What are the tasks and topics you've found that ChatGPT is good at and for which you'd want to use it? And conversely, where are the areas where it falls short? Cerasa: In general, it is good at three things: research, summarizing long documents, and, in some cases, writing. I'm sure in the future, and maybe in the present, many editors will try to think of ways AI can erase journalists. That could be possible, because if you are not a journalist with enough creativity, enough reporting, enough ideas, maybe you are worse than a machine. But in that case, the problem is not the machine. The technology can also recall and synthesize far more information than a human can. The first article we put in the normal newspaper written with AI was about the discovery of a key ingredient for life on a distant planet. We asked the AI to write a piece on great authors of the past and how they imagined the day scientists would make such a discovery. A normal person would not be able to remember all these things. Wong: And what can't the AI do? Cerasa: AI cannot find the news; it cannot develop sources or interview the prime minister. AI also doesn't have interesting ideas about the world—that's where natural intelligence comes in. AI is not able to draw connections in the same way as intelligent human journalists. I don't think an AI would be able to come up with and fully produce a newspaper generated by AI. Wong: You mentioned before that there may be some articles or tasks at a newspaper that AI can already write or perform better than humans, but if so, the problem is an insufficiently skilled person. Don't you think young journalists have to build up those skills over time? I started at The Atlantic as an assistant editor, not a writer, and my primary job was fact-checking. Doesn't AI threaten the talent pipeline, and thus the media ecosystem more broadly? Cerasa: It's a bit terrifying, because we've come to understand how many creative things AI can do. For our children to use AI to write something in school, to do their homework, is really terrifying. But AI isn't going away—you have to educate people to use it in the correct way, and without hiding it. In our newspaper, there is no fear about AI, because our newspaper is very particular and written in a special way. We know, in a snobby way, that our skills are unique, so we are not scared. But I'm sure that a lot of newspapers could be scared, because normal articles written about the things that happened the day before, with the agency news—that kind of article, and also that kind of journalism, might be the past. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Coders are saving the Second Amendment: DIY guns and digital resistance
America has always defended itself and its freedoms with a gun in hand. But as technology evolves, code is starting to take its place. A new generation of Second Amendment supporters no longer visits shooting ranges or joins the NRA — instead, it circulates blueprints for 3D-printed weapons. Its members' mission is to protect their homes and their right to bear arms, no matter how the government feels about it. While Americans argue about bans, laws, and protests, an entire ecosystem of do-it-yourself gun culture has grown right under their noses. It's nothing like the old movies, where weapons were built from pipes and nails. Ghost guns — firearms without serial numbers or registration — are often made with parts printed on 3D printers and bought online. U.S. law allows individuals to make firearms for personal use, as long as they don't sell them. According to the ATF, this is legal in many cases. This culture has gone far beyond garages. Blueprints and guides are now spread through Tor, Telegram, and GitHub – anonymously and in ways that are nearly impossible to erase. The first famous design, 'The Liberator,' was posted back in 2013. To this day, anonymous communities keep sharing new versions. These self-styled digital patriots view the right to bear arms as a core freedom. Critics argue they undermine control, because weapons without serial numbers can't be traced. Laws can limit sales, but not ideas. While politicians try to close down stores, millions are downloading code. The Second Amendment has been digitized — it now lives in browsers. When the Supreme Court recently allowed new regulations on so-called 'ghost guns,' as detailed in this ruling, it only proved the paradox: Governments can chase physical parts, but the digital heartbeat of the Second Amendment grows stronger. For every law targeting the sale of hardware, a thousand computer files escape into the wild — untraceable, unstoppable, multiplying in the encrypted corners of the internet, where freedom now lives. Maybe we have reached the point where weapons are no longer just objects. They cannot be eradicated through any amount of banning, seizing, or burning so long as they can be downloaded. Yes, it's scary, but freedom isn't about comfort. It is about risk, discomfort, and chaos — and living with that to keep the right to defend yourself. I don't support putting guns in the hands of criminals. I also don't believe the answer is total control, or that such a thing is even possible. Today, the state is trying to catch up with the internet. But the internet will never stop. As Wired explains, this movement is spreading faster than any law can catch up. And maybe the real question isn't whether to ban weapons — it's how to live in a world where a weapon is now knowledge. This is Prometheus's curse for the digital age: We have stolen the fire of creation, and now we must live with its light, its heat and its burns. The more the government tries to play god by banning and seizing, the deeper into the cave the forge of innovation moves, hammering out new blueprints where Zeus's lightning cannot reach. Maybe this is the new era of the Second Amendment — and its files can't be taken away from Americans. Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
