Latest news with #BriberyAct
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- Politics
- First Post
7 things about Sri Lanka's carrom board case for which ex-minister faces jail
On May 29, 2025, the Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar sentenced Aluthgamage and former Trade Minister Anil (Nalin) Fernando to 20 and 25 years in prison, respectively, for the misappropriation of state funds read more Sri Lanka's former sports minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage (C) and former trade minister Anil Fernando (center R) are escorted by police outside a court in Colombo. AFP In a major anti-corruption ruling, former Sri Lankan Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment over his involvement in the 'carrom board case' on 29 May, 2025. He has since filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the conviction. Here are the key facts surrounding the case: 1. Landmark conviction in a high-profile corruption case On May 29, 2025, the Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar sentenced Aluthgamage and former Trade Minister Anil (Nalin) Fernando to 20 and 25 years in prison, respectively, for the misappropriation of state funds. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 2. Misuse of Rs. 53 million in state funds The case, brought by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), included a fraudulent procurement agreement involving boards imported between September 1 and December 31, 2014. The entire financial damage to the state is estimated at Rs. 53.1 million. 3. Carrom and draught boards used for political campaigning The funds were spent on importing 14,000 carrom boards and 11,000 draughts sets, which were distributed to sports clubs. Prosecutors argued this was done to boost the 2015 re-election bid of then-President Mahinda Rajapaksa — a clear case of public resources being used for political gain. 4. Violation of procurement procedures The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), which oversaw the case, said that the purchases were politically motivated and carried out in blatant violation of procurement standards. 5. Charges under the Bribery Act The Bribery Commission filed six counts against the duo under Section 70 of the Bribery Act, which deals with the misappropriation of public assets for unofficial purposes. 6. Appeal filed in Supreme Court Aluthgamage's legal team filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, challenging the 20-year sentence handed down by the High Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 7. First major conviction from the Rajapaksa-era cabinet Aluthgamage is the most senior member of a Rajapaksa-led cabinet to be successfully prosecuted for corruption. The case, originally filed six years ago, had made slow progress until a new government accelerated proceedings last year. This case represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka's anti-corruption efforts. With Aluthgamage appealing the verdict, the final outcome now rests with the country's highest court.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Jon Stewart asks if Trump will 'burn our country down for insurance money' amid CBS lawsuit
"The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart expressed worry this week that the Trump administration's lawsuit against CBS News could also result in the end of his show, as well as pain for the country. In an interview on "The Bill Simmons Podcast," Stewart slammed President Donald Trump's pending lawsuit against CBS News and its parent company Paramount, saying it's merely a way to get major corporations to grovel before the president's agenda. "But what you're seeing now is, all must pay tribute to the king," he said, elsewhere accusing other U.S. corporate leaders of paying Trump "protection money" to survive. Sanders, Warren Warn Paramount That Settling Trump Lawsuit Could Be Illegal Bribery Act Trump sued CBS News and Paramount – also Comedy Central's parent company – for $10 billion in October over allegations of election interference involving the "60 Minutes" interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris that aired weeks before the presidential election (the amount has since jumped to $20 billion). Both Trump and Paramount have entered mediation, which could conclude at any time. Read On The Fox News App Stewart brought up the topic during the interview, saying that he's comfortable hosting "The Daily Show" on Monday nights up "until, you know, the company is bought out by people that don't want anything to do with 'The Daily Show.'" "And then who the f--- knows what's going to happen. I mean, look what they're doing now to '60 Minutes' and CBS News and everything else," he added. Cbs News Staffers Rattled By Ceo's Abrupt Exit As Trump Lawsuit Looms Over Network Host Bill Simmons remarked that both of them, along with other media pundits, are "in an area now that we've never been in my lifetime." "Oh, it's insane," Stewart replied. He predicted that the media landscape they're a part of might not exist in the future because of the president's lawsuit, which he went on to criticize. "Now you can make comments about, 'Well, I think I didn't like the way they edited it in the way that oftentimes people don't like the way they edited it. But it certainly doesn't rise to the level of libel, slander, or whatever the f--- else they're doing with a $2 billion lawsuit." Stewart defended the way the CBS News show edited the Harris interview, adding, "It's a purely subjective editorial decision." Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture He called out other networks and business moguls for cooperating with the Trump administration, accusing them of bribing the president so that he avoids harassing them. "And the price of peace is different. You know, ABC had to pay $15 million. Bezos had to pay $40 million for a documentary on Melania. Zuckerberg had to pay – they just put money into the pot, so hopefully they don't get… What does that remind you of?" "Michael Corleone," Simmons responded, naming the main character from the "Godfather" films. "Right," Stewart replied. "It's protection money." Later, he referred to it as "bribery." He continued, "So ultimately, at the end of this, does Trump burn our f------ country down for insurance money? Like where are we headed?"Original article source: Jon Stewart asks if Trump will 'burn our country down for insurance money' amid CBS lawsuit
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legal experts blast ‘baseless' Warren-Sanders letter warning Paramount against Trump lawsuit settlement
Legal experts blasted an ominous letter that a trio of liberal senators sent to Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone this week that suggested settling President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS News could be illegal under the federal bribery statute. Trump is seeking $20 billion from CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, for what he alleged was election interference with how "60 Minutes" edited its interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the weeks leading up to the presidential election. The two sides have entered mediation in hopes of reaching a settlement, and Redstone is widely believed to be open to a deal ahead of a planned multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance Media that could be halted by Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., cautioned Redstone that a quid pro quo arrangement leading to a settlement could break the law. "The allegations are baseless," Ronald Chapman II, a federal defense attorney who's argued before all levels of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, told Fox News Digital. Sanders, Warren Warn Paramount That Settling Trump Lawsuit Could Be Illegal Bribery Act The letter expressed "serious concern" that Paramount may be "engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media" and suggested it could fall under the federal bribery statute. Read On The Fox News App "Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law," Warren, Sanders and Wyden wrote. "The Federal Anti-Bribery Statute states it is illegal to 'corruptly' give anything of value to public officials to influence an act," Chapman said before listing a series of "problems" he found in the letter. Chapman said the entire letter is "based on a hypothetical quid pro quo without any support" that the Trump administration has coerced a quid pro quo. "We don't infringe private rights based on hypotheticals. Warren and Sanders must know that this type of activism and hyperbolic outrage is irresponsible," Chapman said. "There is no support for the contention that payment for damages under a lawsuit is 'a thing of value to influence' a federal official. Moreover, there is no support for the idea that such a settlement would be corrupt," he continued. "Perhaps Sanders and Warren don't understand this, but their letter implies that CBS and Paramount are potentially engaged in bribery, which is an outrageous and unfounded allegation." Chapman said a federal judge will likely approve the deal and "we have much bigger problems" if senators believe a federal judge is going to condone bribery. "A judge-approved settlement is the opposite of 'corruption.' This is a nothing burger," Chapman said. '60 Minutes' Calls Out Corporate Owner Paramount On The Air, Says Producer Who Quit Felt Interfered With The senators also said Paramount appeared to be trying to "appease" the Trump administration to secure merger approval and cited veteran CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley, who recently told CBS viewers that "Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways" as the company is "trying to complete a merger." The letter referenced the recent resignations of CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens, who both criticized corporate overlords on their way out. Cornell Law professor William A. Jacobson, founder of Legal Insurrection, echoed the notion that the harshly worded letter is essentially irrelevant. "The claim that a settlement between Trump and CBS would be a violation of the bribery statute may make good politics, but it doesn't necessarily reflect good law," Jacobson told Fox News Digital. "Trump has a lawsuit that the company might want to settle in the normal course, while claiming it did nothing wrong. That's standard corporate conduct," he added. "It's also standard corporate conduct to clear the litigation docket before a merger." Jacobson noted that the letter recognized that the sides would have had to agree to perform an official act in exchange for the settlement in order for a bribery allegation, but he doesn't see any evidence of a quid pro quo. "The facts of how a settlement comes down, of course, would be important, and I expect that it would be structured to steer clear of any possible criminal violations by making clear that no action by Trump in his capacity as president is required," Jacobson said. Michelle May O'Neil, a senior shareholder at OWLawyers, believes the senators are "savvy about how litigation works" and must know that most courts require mediation and settlement efforts before spending the taxpayers' resources on a trial. "The trial between Trump and CBS would be a circus and cost even more taxpayer resources because of the media attention and high-profile nature of the issues. Accusing litigants of 'bribery' just because they settle legal differences is a terrible look for these [three] knowledgeable and allegedly respected senators," O'Neil told Fox News Digital. "They know better. This seems to be just another attempt to grab a headline and be relevant about a non-issue," she continued. "What they should be asking is, 'Is in the interest of our citizens for this fight to keep going?' Or, 'Should we all start looking to the future and solving the real problems of the American people?'" '60 Minutes' Producer's Abrupt Exit Fuels Drama At Cbs News As Network Battles Trump Lawsuit O'Neil also feels that when companies are focused on future business deals, being involved in any type of litigation "isn't conducive to the future gain." "It is common for companies to wrap up outstanding liabilities before entering into new deals or mergers," O'Neil said, noting that if CBS truly wanted to interfere in the election, the network ultimately failed because Harris lost. "CBS may have decided that the time, effort, and money that the lawsuit required could be better spent on endeavors moving forward," O'Neil said. "What's done is done – how can we wrap this up and move on? Only cases that have really big legal issues or problems that lack a reasonable resolution view end up in trial in court." Attorney Danny Karon, author of the forthcoming book "Your Lovable Lawyer's Guide to Legal Wellness: Fighting Back Against a World That's Out to Cheat You," said the letter "was a dead-bang loser from the get-go." "Not only did the senators assume a lot in accusing Paramount of engaging in bribery, but also any information they hope would prove their case is protected by attorney-client privilege, meaning they'll never get it in the first place – period," Karon told Fox News Digital. Karon also took issue with Warren, Sanders and Wyden noting that Paramount could settle a lawsuit the company initially said was "completely without merit" as if that disqualifies the company from reaching an agreement ahead of trial. Cbs Anchors Salute Outgoing '60 Minutes' Producer, Say Effort To Settle Trump Lawsuit Tied To Corporate Merger "Every defendant in every case ever sued decries a plaintiff's allegations as 'completely without merit,' as they claim to 'vigorously defend' themselves. These statements were as inconsequential as they were expected," Karon said. "And that CBS might be interested in settling is hardly a concession. Settlement -- if Paramount is even seriously considering it -- happens for various reasons, from financial to political to personal," he added. "For the senators to infer from this settlement possibility that Paramount is on the take is 'completely without merit.'" The offices of Warren, Sanders and Wyden did not immediately respond to a request for article source: Legal experts blast 'baseless' Warren-Sanders letter warning Paramount against Trump lawsuit settlement
Sky News
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Ex-Reform UK leader in Wales Nathan Gill to deny taking Russian-linked bribes
The former leader of Reform UK in Wales has indicated he will deny charges of making favourable statements about Russia in the European Parliament in exchange for bribes. Nathan Gill, 51, had been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery under the Criminal Law Act 1977, and with eight counts of bribery under the Bribery Act, 2010. He allegedly made statements in the European Parliament and in opinion pieces to news outlets, such as 112 Ukraine, which were "supportive of a particular narrative" and would "benefit Russia regarding events in Ukraine". It is alleged that Gill - who was an MEP for almost six years and a member of the Welsh parliament, the Senedd, between 2016 and 2017 - was asked by former Ukrainian politician Oleg Voloshyn to make specific statements about Russia in return for money on at least eight occasions. On Friday, Gill, of Anglesey, north Wales, appeared for a preliminary hearing at the Old Bailey before Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, and his lawyer, Clare Ashcroft, indicated he would deny the charges against him, but asked that he not be asked to formally enter pleas yet. Prosecutor Mark Heywood KC told the court the charges related to the defendant's time as a member of the European Parliament, and said that charges had been authorised against his alleged co-conspirator Voloshyn, who is believed to be out of the jurisdiction. A plea hearing was set by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb for 18 July, and a provisional trial before a High Court judge from 29 June 2026 at the Old Bailey. Gill stood in the dock wearing a blue striped tie and grey suit. He spoke only to confirm his identity during the hearing. At the end of the hearing, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb addressed the defendant, telling him: "I'm going to release you on bail on the same conditions as before." He is bailed on the condition that he surrender his passport, does not obtain international travel documents and does not contact Voloshyn. The conspiracy to commit bribery charge relates to allegations that Gill conspired with Voloshyn and "others" between 1 January 2018 and 1 February 2020. It claims he accepted "quantities of money in cash" which was "improper performance by him of his function or activity as the holder" of a position as an MEP. The other bribery offences are alleged to have taken place between 6 December 2018 and 18 July 2019. Gill was previously a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), leading the Welsh wing of the party between 2014 and 2016. He left UKIP in 2019, and the same year he joined Nigel Farage's Brexit Party - later Reform UK - and was elected as a Brexit Party MEP. Gill was confirmed as leader of Reform UK Wales in 2021 ahead of Senedd elections, but reports suggest he left the party months later when he failed to win a seat. A spokesperson for Reform UK Wales previously confirmed Gill was no longer a member, and said the party would not be commenting. Gill was stopped at Manchester Airport on 13 September 2021 under the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. The Crown Prosecution Service said charges have been authorised against Voloshyn, but he is not in the jurisdiction.
Sky News
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Ex-Reform UK leader in Wales Nathan Gill in court over alleged Russian bribes
The former leader of Reform UK in Wales has appeared in court after he was accused of making favourable statements about Russia in the European Parliament in exchange for bribes. Nathan Gill, 51, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery under the Criminal Law Act 1977, and with eight counts of bribery under the Bribery Act, 2010, the Metropolitan Police said. Westminster Magistrates' Court heard Gill allegedly made statements in the European Parliament and in opinion pieces to news outlets, such as 112 Ukraine, which were "supportive of a particular narrative" and would "benefit Russia regarding events in Ukraine". Gill - who was an MEP for almost six years and a member of the Welsh parliament, the Senedd, between 2016 and 2017 - is alleged to have been asked by former Ukrainian politician Oleg Voloshyn to make specific statements about Russia in return for money on at least eight occasions. The conspiracy to commit bribery charge relates to allegations that Gill conspired with Voloshyn and "others" between 1 January 2018 and 1 February 2020. It claims he accepted "quantities of money in cash" which was "improper performance by him of his function or activity as the holder" of a position as an MEP. The other bribery offences are alleged to have taken place between 6 December 2018 and 18 July 2019. Gill, from Llangefni on Anglesey, was previously a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), leading the Welsh wing of the party between 2014 and 2016. He left UKIP in 2019, and the same year he joined Nigel Farage's Brexit Party - later Reform UK - and was elected as a Brexit Party MEP. Gill was confirmed as leader of Reform UK Wales in 2021 ahead of Senedd elections, but reports suggest he left the party months later when he failed to win a seat. A spokesperson for Reform UK Wales confirmed Gill was no longer a member, and said the party would not be commenting. Gill was stopped at Manchester Airport on 13 September 2021 under the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, the court also heard. The Crown Prosecution Service said charges have been authorised against Voloshyn but he is not in the jurisdiction. Gill was granted bail on the condition that he surrender his passport, does not obtain international travel documents and does not contact Voloshyn.
