Carlos Ghosn Arrested Again Over New Financial Misconduct Allegations

https://www.ibtimes.com/carlos-ghosn-arrested-again-over-new-financial-misconduct-allegations-2783089

usted Nissan Motor chief Carlos Ghosn was re-arrested on Thursday. He was out on bail since early March after spending 108 days in judicial custody.

According to reports, Ghosn was re-arrested from his Tokyo apartment Thursday morning over new allegations of financial misconduct.

In November, he was arrested on charges ranging from suppressing his income, abuse of official position to pushing personal investment losses to Nissan.

But he has denied all those charges.

Top articles

2/5

Airbnb Offers Chance To Stay Overnight

At The Louvre Museum

A spokesperson of Ghosn described the arrest as “outrageous and arbitrary and an attempt by some individuals at Nissan to silence Ghosn by misleading the prosecutors.”

Ghosn's lawyer Junichiro Hironaka said he would appeal against the latest arrest. He alleged that Tokyo prosecutors took away the passport and mobile phone of Ghosn's wife.

The allegation of financial misappropriation

According to the Tokyo prosecutor's office, the new charge involves Ghosn diverting Nissan funds for personal use. Between 2015 and 2018 Ghosn sent out payments to an overseas dealer on self-interest and caused loss to Nissan.

Another report said the rearrest related to the payment of $32m Nissan funds to a distributor in Oman. It is being suspected that a part of the funds was allegedly used in the purchase of luxury yacht for Ghosn and family.

But Ghosn denied irregularities in the use of discretionary fund adding that “under no circumstance, all or part of such payments ever benefited Carlos Ghosn or his family.”

Re-arrest after tweeting on press meet

Interestingly, Ghosn’s re-arrest came a day after he tweeted that he is going to hold a press conference on April 11 to reveal the truth behind his downfall.

Reports also said the latest arrest is a fall out of Renault turning against Ghosn for “questionable and concealed practices.”

Ghosn had resigned from the French carmaker in January. Both Nissan and Mitsubishi removed him as chairman after his arrest last year.

Renault initially differed with Nissan's allegations and held its own internal inquiry. On Wednesday, it accused Ghosn of “violations of the group's ethical principles.”

The French carmaker on Wednesday said it would stop Ghosn's pension, worth €765,000 ($859, 707) a year and move court.

Under the strict bail conditions, Ghosn is barred from using the internet and his offline use of computers is limited to weekdays at the lawyer’s premises.

GettyImages-Carlos Ghosn

Former Nissan chairman Carlos Ghosn leaves his lawyers' offices after he released on bail in Tokyo on March 6, 2019. On Thursday, Ghosn was rearrested on the basis of fresh charges. Photo: KAZUHIRO NOGI/AFP/Getty Images

Nissan declined to officially comment on Ghosn's new arrest. A spokesman had said earlier its own investigation into Ghosn had uncovered “substantial evidence of blatantly unethical conduct.”

Ghosn is known as a veteran in the car industry who led Nissan from the verge of bankruptcy two decades ago. He was also the architect of a successful alliance with Nissan, Renault and Mitsubishi Motors.

After his arrest in November, he was sacked as chairman of Nissan and Mitsubishi but resigned as head of Renault only in January.

Pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 followed rules, preliminary report says

Ethiopia's transport minister recommended that aviation authorities confirm the problem had been solved before allowing the model of jet back into the air.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pilots-ethiopian-airlines-boeing-737-max-8-followed-rules-preliminary-n990816

April 4, 2019, 5:10 AM EDT / Updated April 4, 2019, 7:12 AM EDT

By Associated Press

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The crew of the Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed last month followed proper procedures when their Boeing Max 8 repeatedly nose-dived but were unable to control the plane, according to the first official report on the disaster.

The preliminary report recommends that the flight control system should be reviewed by Boeing.

"The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft," Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges told a news conference Thursday.

Moges said "repetitive uncommanded aircraft nose down conditions" had been identified.

She recommended that Boeing review the aircraft control system and aviation authorities confirm the problem had been solved before allowing that model of plane back into the air.

The Boeing 737 Max 8 jet crashed on March 10 shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa, killing all 157 on board. It was the second crash of a 737 Max within five months, following a Lion Air crash in Indonesia.

Following the Ethiopian disaster, the Max jets have been grounded worldwide pending a software fix that Boeing is rolling out, which must still receive approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and other regulators.

The preliminary report into the Lion Air disaster said the pilots lost control after grappling with the plane’s Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software, a new automated anti-stall feature that repeatedly lowered the nose of the aircraft based on faulty data from a sensor.

Boeing declined to comment pending its review of the preliminary report.

Australia to jail social media executives or fine platforms if they fail to remove ‘abhorrent violent material’

Australia is set to introduce some of the toughest social media legislation worldwide, after Parliament voted Thursday to pass changes that could allow judges to send social media executives to prison …

The Washington Post1h

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

>>6043899

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/australia-could-put-social-media-executives-in-jail-for-violent-posts/507-048f7bed-e606-4690-8470-1cd95d76d591

Australia could put social media executives in jail for violent posts

A massacre that killed 50 people at two New Zealand mosques last month was livestreamed on Facebook for 17 minutes.

Author: ROD McGUIRK , Associated Press

Published: 9:46 PM PDT April 3, 2019

Updated: 9:46 PM PDT April 3, 2019

CANBERRA, ACT — CANBERRA, Australia — Australia's Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream violent images such as the New Zealand mosque shootings.

Critics warn that some of the most restrictive laws about online communication in the democratic world could have unforeseen consequences, including media censorship and reduced investment in Australia.

The conservative government introduced the bills in response to the March 15 attacks in Christchurch in which an Australian white supremacist apparently used a helmet-mounted camera to broadcast live as he shot worshippers in the two mosques.

RELATED: New Zealand passes first gun restriction vote

Australia's government rushed the legislation through the last two days that Parliament sits before elections are expected in May, dispensing with the usual procedure of a committee scrutinizing its content first.

"Together we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purpose of spreading their violent and extreme propaganda — these platforms should not be weaponized for evil," Attorney-General Christian Porter told Parliament while introducing the bill.

The opposition's spokesman on the attorney-general portfolio, Mark Dreyfus, committed his center-left Labor Party to support the bill, despite misgivings. If the Labor wins the election, the law would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

>>6043910

The bill would make it a crime for social media platforms not to remove "abhorrent violent material" quickly. The crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million) or 10% of the platform's annual turnover.

Abhorrent violent material is defined as acts of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping. The material must he recorded by the perpetrator or an accomplice.

Platforms anywhere in the world would face fines of up to AU$840,000 if they fail to notify Australian Federal Police if they are aware their service was streaming "abhorrent violent conduct" occurring in Australia.

Dreyfus described the bill as "flimsy and flawed." He described the timetable to pass the bill as "ridiculous." Labor first saw the legislation late Monday.

Australia Social Media

Australia's Attorney-General Christian Porter, left, and Minister for Communications Mitch Fifield hold a press conference at Parliament House, in Canberra, Wednesday, April 4, 2019. (Mick Tsikas/AAP Image via AP)

AP

The bill could potentially undermine Australia's security cooperation with the United States by requiring U.S. internet providers to share content data with Australian Federal Police in breach of U.S. law, Dreyfus said.

"Labor believes that the social media companies must do more in preventing the dissemination of material produced by terrorists, showing of their crimes, and for that reason Labor will, despite reservations … be supporting the passage of this bill," Dreyfus said.

An attempt by the minor Greens party and independent lawmakers to have the vote scrutinized by a parliamentary committee was rejected.

Arthur Moses, president of the Australian Law Council, the nation's top lawyers group, said the law could lead to media censorship and prevent whistleblowers from using social media to shine a light on atrocities because of social media companies' fear of prosecution.

"Media freedom and whistleblowing of atrocities here and overseas have been put at risk by the ill-informed livestream laws passed by the Federal Parliament," Moses said.

The penalties would be "bad for certainty and bad for business" which could scare off online business investment in Australia, Moses said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox, a leading business advocate, said more time was required to ensure the law did not unnecessarily impinge on existing fundamental media rights and freedoms.

"Rushing this legislation through will not make Australia safe," he said.

Scott Farquhar, co-founder of the Sydney-based software company Atlassian, predicted job losses in the technology industry.

"As of today, any person working at any company (globally) that allows users to upload videos or images could go to jail," Farquhar tweeted. "Guilty until proven innocent."

Fergus Hanson, head of the International Cyber Policy Center at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, saw problems in the legislation's definitions, including how long a company had to "expeditiously" remove offense material.

Alex McCauley, chief executive of national tech startup advocacy organization StartupAUS, described the legislation as "anti-tech."

"We want to see it (social media) better regulated and we just simply haven't had the conversation at a national level about what that means and there hasn't been time and there hasn't been consultation," McCauley told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Facebook livestreamed the Christchurch massacre for 17 minutes without interruption before reacting. Facebook said it removed 1.5 million videos of the shootings during the first 24 hours afterward.

It was filmed by Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, whose video and writings included anti-Muslim views and detailed how he planned the attack. Tarrant is scheduled to appear in court Friday and will face 50 murder and 38 attempted murder charges, according to New Zealand police.

>>6043916

police.

Australian Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said social media companies including Facebook met with him, Chester and Prime Minister Scott Morrison last week. Fifield said Facebook "did not present any immediate solutions to the issues arising out of the horror that occurred in Christchurch."

Morrison wants to take the Australian law to a Group of 20 countries forum as a model for holding social media companies to account.

New Zealand's Justice Minster Andrew Little said his government had also made a commitment to review the role of social media and the obligations of the companies that provide the platforms.

And he said he'd asked officials to look at the effectiveness of current hate speech laws and whether there were gaps that need to be filled.

Little said he didn't see any irony in that people were watching hearings into a bill that would place new restrictions on guns in real time on Facebook, the same platform the shooter used to broadcast the massacre.

"There's a world of difference, I think, between the exercise of a democratic function and a democratic institution like a national parliament, and some of the more toxic stuff that you see put out by individuals," he said.

MIT cuts collaborations with Chinese tech firms Huawei, ZTE

(Reuters) - The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said on Wednesday it has cut collaborations with Huawei Technologies and ZTE Corp over U.S. federal investigations of the Chinese technology …

Reuters7h

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei-tech-zte-idUSKCN1RG0FS

Exclusive–Brandon Judd: DHS Can End Catch and Release by Empowering Border Patrol to Judge Asylum Claims

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/03/exclusive-brandon-judd-dhs-can-end-catch-and-release-by-empowering-border-patrol-to-judge-asylum-claims/

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd says the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering a plan to allow U.S. Border Patrol agents to administer “credible fear” interviews to border crossers that would “exponentially” drive down soaring illegal immigration levels.

During an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Tonight, Judd said illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border could be quickly cut and the policy of Catch and Release could be ended if DHS authorized Border Patrol agents to conduct immediate interviews with illegal border crossers claiming asylum.

As Breitbart News has reported, less than ten percent of the Central American border crossers arriving at the southern border have legitimate asylum claims, DHS previously revealed. While nearly 90 percent of Central Americans passed an initial credible fear interview, only nine percent were actually granted asylum.

“If you look at one of the things that slow down the system, we just don’t have enough USCIS officers to do credible fear interviews on the spot,” Judd explained:

The statute only says that it has to be an immigration officer that does the credible fear interviews. So you can train Border Patrol agents to give credible fear interviews on the spot. If an individual fails a credible fear interview, that individual becomes subject to deportation immediately. That person does have appeals rights but that appeal has to be heard within ten days. Instead of taking two to five years to deport somebody, we could deport somebody within ten days if the credible fear interview is done on the spot. [Emphasis added]

The proposal, detailed by Judd in a Washington Times op-ed, has been under consideration by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen but has yet to be implemented. The plan was “actually proposed” by White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, Judd said.

Under the plan, Border Patrol would be authorized to conduct interviews with illegal border crossers claiming asylum, rather than turning them over the adjudicators at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency.

Judd wrote in the op-ed of the proposal:

>>6044145

(contd)

If the “credible fear” process begins upon arrest by Border Patrol agents, instead of at a later interview before an asylum officer, the process will be much more efficient. If an asylum-trained senior patrol agent determines that the alien has not established a credible fear, an order of expedited removal can be issued, and the illegal border-crosser can be removed immediately. The illegal border-crosser does have appeal rights, but by regulation an immigration judge must hear the case within 10 days of the person asking for reconsideration. Again, because this is not a criminal proceeding, the burden of proof remains on the illegal border-crosser, not the U.S. government. [Emphasis added]

If no credible fear is established, the process would take no more than 10 days instead of the 2 to 5 years it now takes to deport an illegal border-crosser who claims asylum. This simple adjustment would end catch-and-release. [Emphasis added]

Judd said the implementation of the plan would cut illegal immigration down to the historically low levels that the U.S. saw when President Trump was sworn into office.

“Let’s go back to April 2017. We dropped to 45-year lows of illegal immigration and we dropped to those lows on the promise that if you cross the border illegally, you would then be subject to deportation proceedings,” Judd said.

“Because we didn’t follow through with that promise, now that number has grown astronomical to a point where its simply totally out of control,” Judd continued. “Now let’s go back and let’s say ‘Okay, we failed to do what we needed to do in April 2017, we’re now going to do it’ and once we start following through with that promise to actually hold people pending their deportation proceedings, illegal immigration will drop exponentially … that’s exactly what will happen if this plan is implemented.”

Breitbart News analysis has revealed that at current projections of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, Catch and Release levels, and visa overstays, the nation is set to admit and resettle about one million to 1.5 million border crossers and illegal aliens this year.

Due to the Trump administration’s expansion of the Catch and Release program, DHS is on track to release roughly 434,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into the country by the end of the year. This projection is based on current estimates that more than 36,000 border crossers and illegal aliens have been released from DHS custody every month since the beginning of the year.

Great idea Mr. Miller! <3

San Diego lawmakers sue Trump administration as border county cares for 11,000 asylum seekers

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-diego-trump-lawsuit-asylum-seekers-20190404-story.html

San Diego County's Republican-dominated board of supervisors filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Trump administration, claiming that policy changes in the way the federal government treats asylum seekers have strained the city's finances and health services.

The Trump administration ended the so-called Safe Release program in October, which gave asylum seekers who had crossed the border assistance in reaching final destinations with family members and friends, the lawsuit noted.

"Now, large numbers of asylum seekers and accompanying family members are forced to remain in the County, without sufficient means to support themselves, because Defendants abruptly stopped providing asylum seekers with assistance in reaching their final destination," it reads. "In response to Defendants' sudden and unlawful change in policy … the County has been forced to expend substantial funds and other resources to provide medical screening and care to the asylum seekers."

The lawsuit, filed in District Court in Southern California, amounts to one more rebuke of the Trump administration's harsh immigration policies and rhetoric by a border city.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was named in the suit along with leadership at agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

The county board voted in February to sue the Trump administration over the program's end. The vote was 4 to 1, with three of the board's four Republicans joining one newly elected Democrat in supporting it.

In Nogales, Arizona, officials formally condemned the installation of six rows of razor wire the military installed on the U.S. side of existing border fence in the city, saying they feared it made residents less safe. In El Paso, Texas, county officials passed a resolution saying they were disillusioned by President Donald Trump's claims about the supposed lawlessness and dangers of the border.

In San Diego, the end of the Safe Release program meant the county had to find a place to shelter the 20 to 30 family units (60 to 80 parents and children) that have been released into the county each day since October 2018, according to the complaint. Since December, county health workers have been screening asylum seekers, many of whom have been staying at a shelter the county created out of an old courthouse it leased to a nonprofit. About 75 screenings are conducted by 14 county employees assigned to the shelter each day, according to the lawsuit.

"We have an obligation to take care of these families who have gone through so much - we can't let them become victims of human trafficking or become homeless," said Supervisor Nathan Fletcher, a newly elected Democrat whose district includes the shelter. "This is the federal government's responsibility. This crisis is being created entirely by Donald Trump's inhumane immigration policies."

Fletcher said 11,000 legal asylum seekers have come through shelters in San Diego since November, with an average stay of 72 hours.

Before the Safe Release policy ended, "ICE would transport the traveling asylum seekers directly to the departure points for their prearranged mode of transportation, such bus stations, train stations, and airports, facilitating an orderly release process. ICE would also provide a minimal amount of food to asylum seekers for their journeys to their final destinations," the lawsuit states.

Other supervisors did not return requests for comment.

The county has spent more than $1.3 million operating the downtown shelter, Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Dianne Jacob wrote on Twitter.

"The federal government's negligent approach to those seeking asylum is taking a huge toll on San Diego County taxpayers," she said.

>>6044239

; )

>>6044507

Thank You Anon!

>>6044376

Damn Nice Job Anon!

>>6044145

Baker Notable!