Tag Archives: Regulation

Biden Administration to Ask Congress to Approve F-16 Sale to Turkey

The Biden administration is preparing to seek congressional approval for a $20 billion sale of new F-16 jet fighters to Turkey along with a separate sale of next-generation F-35 warplanes to Greece, in what would be among the largest foreign weapons sales in recent years, according to U.S. officials.

Administration officials intend the prospect of the sale to prod Turkey to sign off on Finland and Sweden’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Ankara has blocked over objections to their ties to Kurdish separatist groups. Congress’s approval of the sale is contingent on Turkey’s acquiescence, administration officials said. The two countries ended decades of neutrality when they decided to join NATO last year in reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The sale to Turkey, which the administration has been considering for more than a year, is larger than expected. It includes 40 new aircraft and kits to overhaul 79 of Turkey’s existing F-16 fleet, according to officials familiar with the proposals.

Congressional notification of the deal will roughly coincide with a visit to Washington next week by Turkey’s Foreign Minister

Mevlut Cavusoglu.

The sale to Turkey also includes more than 900 air-to-air missiles and 800 bombs, one of the officials said.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced U.S. pressure to approve NATO expansion.



Photo:

adem altan/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The separate sale to Greece, which was requested by the Greek government in June 2022, includes at least 30 new F-35s. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the U.S.’s most advanced jet fighter. While officials described the timing of the notifications for both Turkey and Greece as coincidental, it could quell protests from Athens over the F-16 sale if its request is also granted. Greece and Turkey are historic regional rivals and a sale to Turkey alone would likely draw swift condemnation from Athens.

The potential sale of the aircraft could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s efforts to shore up ties with a pair of NATO allies amid the Western response to Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

A State Department spokesman declined to comment on potential arms transfers as a matter of policy until and unless they are formally notified to Congress. Congress has never successfully blocked a foreign arms sale requested by the White House.

The proposed deal with Turkey comes at a moment of tension in U.S.-Turkish relations, with Washington also attempting to convince President Recep

Tayyip Erdogan

to do more to enforce sanctions on Russia and to approve the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO.

The proposal also sets up a possible showdown with some congressional leaders who have vowed to oppose weapons sales to Turkey. Sen.

Bob Menendez,

a Democrat from New Jersey who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he wouldn’t approve any F-16 sale to Turkey, citing human-rights concerns.

In recent months, Mr. Erdogan has also threatened to launch a new military incursion against Kurdish militants in Syria. Last month a Turkish court also convicted the mayor of Istanbul, a popular opponent of Mr. Erdogan, of insulting public officials in what human rights groups said was part of a crackdown on the Turkish opposition. The Turkish government says its courts are independent.

Under U.S. arms-export laws, Congress will have 30 days to review the deal. If Congress wants to block the deal it must pass a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress can also pass legislation to block or modify a sale at any time until the delivery.

The Biden administration is looking to sell at least 30 new F-35 jet fighters to Greece.



Photo:

robert atanasovski/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

U.S. officials say they are encouraging Mr. Erdogan to drop his opposition to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. One official characterized the F-16s as the “carrot on a stick” to get Turkey to agree.

This, officials said, could ease opposition to the sale among some members of Congress. Officials within the State Department have argued for months that the expansion was imperative to NATO’s collective security. However, officials expect that while the Greece package could sail through Congress, the F-16s may be delayed over some members’ reluctance to embolden Ankara with the additional firepower.

Mr. Erdogan first threatened to veto the two countries’ entrance over their ties to Kurdish militant groups in Iraq and Syria. Turkey has fought a slow-burning war with Kurdish armed groups for decades in a conflict that has left tens of thousands dead.

NATO leaders say that Finland and Sweden have addressed Turkey’s concerns, upholding an agreement signed last year that called for both countries to evaluate Turkish extradition requests and drop restrictions on arms sales to Ankara.

Turkish officials say that Sweden hasn’t done enough to uphold its obligations to Turkey, citing what they say is continuing activity by the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Sweden. The Turkish government this week summoned Sweden’s ambassador over a demonstration in Stockholm in which protesters hung a puppet of Mr. Erdogan by its feet. The Turkish president’s hard line against Sweden has broad support within Turkey, including among opposition parties, who have long opposed what they see as a permissive approach to Kurdish militant groups in Europe.

The timing of a vote on NATO expansion in the Turkish parliament will also depend on Turkey’s national election this year, in which Mr. Erdogan faces a close race amid public discontent over the country’s struggling economy.

The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Biden administration remains cautiously optimistic that Turkey will eventually come around on Finland and Sweden. U.S. officials said last year that there would be no quid pro quo for Turkey’s approval of the NATO expansion, and said that the timing of the F-16 sale was dependent on the administration’s own internal process to complete the deal.

The proposed sales also come amid heightened tensions between Turkey and Greece, two longtime adversaries who have traded threats over the past year in the eastern Mediterranean.

Turkey was originally a participant in the U.S.’s cutting-edge F-35 program but was expelled after Mr. Erdogan approved the purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defense system. The U.S. government said the Russian weapons system could potentially hack the F-35.

Biden administration officials have argued that selling F-16s to Turkey could help restore ties with the country, which maintains the second-largest army in NATO.

Under Mr. Erdogan, Turkey has played an important role in the Ukraine crisis, facilitating negotiations over prisoner exchanges and helping to broker an agreement that allowed Ukraine to resume its exports of grain through Black Sea ports. Mr. Erdogan’s close relationship with Russia’s President

Vladimir Putin

has also raised concerns in Washington, with scrutiny of inflows of Russian money to Turkey, including oligarch assets.

Finland and Sweden have formally applied to join NATO, but Turkey has threatened to block them from joining. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday explains why Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sees the expansion as a threat to Turkey’s national security. (Video first published in May 2022). Photo composite: Sebastian Vega

Write to Jared Malsin at jared.malsin@wsj.com and Vivian Salama at vivian.salama@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Getting Results—and Money—When Airlines Cancel Flights

Canceled or delayed flights can cost travelers money. Getting an airline to pay you back for expenses like hotel stays and rental cars isn’t impossible, but it can involve lots of legwork.

Southwest pledged to provide refunds to passengers on canceled or significantly delayed flights between Dec. 24 and Jan. 2, but the airline is also providing reimbursement for additional expenses including the cost of staying at a hotel or renting a car. Passengers were also given 25,000 frequent-flier points in a move by Southwest executives to win them back.

Airline passengers “have very few rights,” said

Paul Hudson,

president of FlyersRights, a consumer advocacy organization. Getting the remuneration that passengers believe they are entitled to can come down to perseverance and communicating extensively with the airline over an extended period.

Here’s what travelers need to know about their rights on domestic flights in the U.S. and how to get reimbursed.

My flight was canceled. Can I get a refund?

Airline customers are entitled to a refund if a flight is canceled for any reason or “significantly delayed” and they opt not to travel, according to rules from the Transportation Department. This policy extends to nonrefundable tickets. The DOT determines on a case-by-case basis whether passengers are entitled to a refund for a delayed flight.

While airlines are required to provide refunds in these circumstances if requested, they aren’t barred from offering other forms of redress first. Carriers will often offer a passenger the opportunity to rebook on another flight or a voucher or credit that could be used for future travel.

In these situations, customers will need to speak with an airline representative and request an “involuntary refund,” Mr. Hudson said. Not all customer-service staff will be familiar with this phrase, he warned, but he described it as “the magic words” to use to get a refund quickly.

I had to stay in a hotel because of a flight delay. Am I entitled to reimbursement?

Additional compensation beyond a refund of airfare and other fees isn’t required by the DOT. Still, most airlines have policies on what they will cover.

If a plane has a technical issue or the flight isn’t properly staffed, an airline’s compensation policy typically will kick in. If the delay or cancellation is due to weather, passengers may be out of luck getting assistance.

The DOT maintains a dashboard spelling out what is covered under the customer-service policies at the 10 largest domestic airlines in the U.S. in cases where cancellations or delays were under the carrier’s control. Each of these major airlines has put these policies in writing, making the commitments enforceable, a DOT spokeswoman said in an email.

My checked luggage went missing. What does the airline owe me?

If a checked bag is delayed, missing or damaged, the airline is liable and must reimburse the traveler. For domestic flights, airlines are only required to cover up to $3,800.

Apart from being required to reimburse passengers for the value of items that were lost or damaged, carriers must also compensate people for incidental expenses such as purchasing replacement clothing or medications. Airlines cannot set an arbitrary daily limit for those expenses, though they can require receipts or other proof for valuable items that were lost, according to the DOT.

I can’t rebook with my airline. Are they required to book me on another airline?

Before the airline industry was deregulated in the U.S. in the 1970s, carriers were required to rebook passengers with other airlines in instances where flights were canceled or delayed. “Now, it’s strictly voluntary,” said Mr. Hudson.

Some carriers have formal relationships with other airlines that allow them to rebook reservations at no additional cost, whereas others may buy tickets from competitors for stranded passengers. Southwest said it bought tickets on other airlines during its meltdown, and

Spirit

did the same during its 2021 meltdown.

I was bumped from my flight by my airline. Is that allowed?

Airlines have come under fire in recent years for the practice of overselling flights and then bumping passengers. The practice is allowed, as long as you haven’t boarded the plane. If you’ve already boarded, the airline can remove you from the flight for safety, security or health reasons.

If a passenger is involuntarily bumped, the carrier must provide a written statement of the flier’s rights and how the company decides who is bumped. They may be provided a refund, but they aren’t guaranteed additional compensation.

To be eligible for compensation, the traveler must have a confirmed reservation, have checked in on time and have arrived at the departure gate on time, the DOT states on its website.  

If all those conditions apply—and the airline cannot rebook the passenger on a flight that gets them to their destination within one hour of their original scheduled arrival—compensation is calculated based on the price of the original ticket, the length of the delay and whether the flight is domestic or international. Compensation ranges from up to $775 for short delays to no more than $1,550 for longer delays.

Write to Jacob Passy at jacob.passy@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

GM’s U.S. Sales Recovered From Early 2022 Woes to Post Full-Year Rise

The U.S.’s largest auto makers confronted another challenging year in 2022 with supply-chain snarls and poorly stocked dealership lots denting sales results and concerns mounting about an economic downturn.

The Detroit auto maker also retook its U.S. sales crown from

Toyota Motor Corp.

TM -0.65%

, outselling its Japanese rival by about 165,630 vehicles last year.

Toyota had overtaken GM in 2021 as the U.S.’s top-selling auto maker, an upending of the traditional pecking order that was largely due to parts shortages that both car companies viewed as temporary.

Toyota said its U.S. sales were down 9.6% in 2022, and

Hyundai Motor Corp.

closed last year with a 2% decline.

Most other car companies report throughout the day Wednesday.

Ford

plans to report 2022 sales results Thursday.

Industrywide, U.S. auto sales are projected to total 13.7 million vehicles in 2022, the lowest figure in more than a decade and an 8% decrease from the prior year, according to a joint forecast by J.D. Power and LMC Automotive. Sales are expected to remain well below prepandemic levels of roughly 17 million.

WSJ toured Rivian’s and Ford’s electric-vehicle factories to see how they are pushing to meet demand. Illustration: Adam Falk/The Wall Street Journal

The drop-off marks a reversal for a sector that started the year hoping historically low interest rates and an end to parts shortages would fuel a rebound in sales. Instead, vehicles continued to be in short supply as car makers mostly waited for scarce computer chips. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a key supplier of auto parts, added to the supply-chain troubles.

A prolonged shortage of semiconductors created pent-up demand for new vehicles, which meant that cars and trucks went to waiting buyers almost as soon as they hit the dealer lot. The lack of availability left buyers paying top dollar for the rides they could secure, pushing the average price paid for a vehicle in December to a near record high of $46,382, according to J.D. Power.

The record high prices buoyed auto maker profits last year despite shrinking sales volume and insulated the industry from a broader decline in consumer spending. 

Now, while some supply constraints are easing, auto executives are confronting other obstacles, such as rising interest rates and soaring materials costs. Inventory levels are bouncing back, putting pressure on car companies to resist the kinds of profit-damaging discounts that have been historically used to counter slowing demand.  

Photos: The EV Rivals Aiming for Tesla’s Crown in China

Some analysts caution that it is still too early to tell if rising prices are pushing buyers away. Heavy snowfall in large parts of the northern U.S. weighed on December sales, making it hard to see the impact of higher prices, JPMorgan analysts wrote in a note to clients. 

Still, there are early signs that demand might be slowing, even for the hottest car makers.

Tesla Inc.

reported Monday that it fell short of its growth projections last year, in part because of Covid-related shutdowns at its Shanghai factory and changes in the way it manufactures and distributes vehicles.

Analysts have pointed to decreased wait times for Tesla vehicles as a sign of softening demand. Tesla offered a rare discount on some of its vehicles if buyers agreed to take delivery before the end of 2022.

Electric-vehicle sales accounted for 3% of the U.S. retail market in 2021 and nearly 6% in 2022, according to J.D. Power.

Executives have been investing billions of dollars on new models and factories, in the belief that sales will continue to expand rapidly over the next decade.

But rising prices for raw materials used in lithium-ion batteries pushed up EV prices throughout 2022, and some executives warned of a looming battery shortage. 

General Motors cut its EV sales target for 2023 because of a slower-than-expected increase of battery production.

The semiconductor shortage, while easing for some other sectors, such as smartphones and personal computers, remains a challenge for autos, in part because car companies typically use inexpensive, commodity silicon for vehicles. Toyota, citing a lack of chips, cut its production outlook for the current fiscal year through March.

Falling used-car values are also discouraging to potential buyers, who have trade-ins and are looking to use them to offset the higher cost of a new vehicle. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What is your outlook on the auto industry for 2023? Join the conversation below.

That bodes poorly for sales this year, as retailers worry that buyers who were unable to buy a car as a result of shortages will now be priced out of the market, according to a survey of dealers conducted by Cox Automotive.

The research site Edmunds expects new-car sales to hit 14.8 million in 2023, a marginal increase from last year but well below prepandemic levels. A combination of rising rates, inflation and economic turmoil could push vehicles out of reach for many buyers, Edmunds said.

Write to Sean McLain at sean.mclain@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Bahamas Regulator Says It Seized $3.5 Billion in FTX Crypto Assets

Bahamas securities regulators said they seized digital assets valued at $3.5 billion from FTX’s local operation in mid-November as the cryptocurrency exchange spiraled toward collapse, a figure that FTX’s U.S. managers cast doubt on Friday.

Christina Rolle, executive director of the Securities Commission of the Bahamas, said in an affidavit made public Thursday that the commission sought control of the crypto assets held by FTX Digital Markets Ltd. last month after FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried told local authorities under oath about a hacking attempt. Her affidavit, filed with the Supreme Court of the Bahamas, also confirmed that the Securities Commission relied on Mr. Bankman-Fried and another FTX co-founder, Gary Wang, to make the transfers happen.

Read original article here

Apartments Vanish From New York’s Rent Regulation System and Questions Linger About How

Amid an ongoing housing affordability crisis, the number of apartments New York landlords register as rent stabilized has dropped significantly — even after a 2019 state law forbade deregulation in most cases.

Potentially thousands of tenants are now paying rent that exceeds formerly regulated amounts, without the rights rent-regulated tenants receive, such as guaranteed lease renewals and limited increases.

Figures THE CITY obtained from the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) show 858,000 apartments registered as rent-regulated as of November 2022, down from 974,000 in 2019, the year the state legislature passed the sweeping Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, or HSTPA.

That law ended so-called vacancy decontrol, in which property owners could remove vacant apartments from regulation after rents reached $2,774 a month. Any decline in the number of rent-regulated apartments after the law took effect on June 14, 2019, raises questions.

Could these missing apartments that vanished from rent regulation be in buildings built or renovated in exchange for tax breaks, such as 421-a? No, because the number of those rent-regulated apartments is growing, not shrinking.

Could landlords simply be late in filing their 2022 registrations? Surely some. Landlords can register their rent stabilized apartments with the state years after the deadline. 

But previous years show declines too: the 927,000 registered as rent-regulated for 2021 was still 47,000 below the 2019 level and 26,000 below the 2020 level.

“There’s no reasonable explanation for why that should be happening within the law,” says Edward Josephson, supervising attorney in the Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, who trains lawyers on the rent laws. 

Some landlord groups, however, see these numbers differently. 

“The idea that tens of thousands of apartments have vanished from registration is absurd. This is simply the natural lag that we see in registering apartments each year,” said Jay Martin, executive director of the Community Housing Improvement Program, in a statement the group posted after this article’s publication. They noted that about 50,000 units unregistered in 2018 eventually got reported to DHCR.

How many of nearly 116,000 unregistered apartments will return to the rent stabilization system, and when, remains to be seen.

These apartments that have vanished from the rent regulation rolls are separate from the tens of thousands that, as THE CITY first reported, are still registered as rent-stabilized but are vacant.

Missing in Action

So what exactly is going on? THE CITY visited one building in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, in the search for clues.

In the middle of a popular strip of shops and restaurants not far from the Brooklyn Museum, 750 Washington Ave. contains 16 apartments, all of which were rent regulated prior to 2019. HSTPA became law in June 2019, ending the possibility of high-rent deregulation. The building’s owner, Witnick Real Estate Partners, purchased the property in December 2018.

The building’s June 2019 property tax bill listed all 16 apartments as rent stabilized. But the owner documented just 10 stabilized apartments in 2020 and then six apartments each year after.

THE CITY talked to about half of the tenants currently living at 750 Washington. Many moved into the building within the past year, and almost all had been unaware when they signed their leases that their apartments had previously been rent-stabilized.

The tenants collectively requested anonymity out of concern for potential retaliation by their landlord.

Four of the recently arrived tenants — all living at 750 Washington under market-rate, non-regulated leases, paying as much as $4,000 monthly — requested their apartments’ rent histories from DHCR. These documents provide a year-by-year breakdown of each past rent increase and also show when landlords remove apartments past the high-rent threshold from the rent regulation system.

All four showed that their apartments had been in the rent regulation system, between 2018 and 2019, then removed by 2020.

One rent history a tenant shared with THE CITY showed a “high rent vacancy” on their apartment’s record, first recorded on Oct. 12, 2020. High rent vacancy decontrol had been abolished in June 2019, and prior to that, only applied to apartments whose legal rent was above $2,774. The last legal rent reported in this apartment, in April 2019, was $1,720.82.

A second tenant shared their nearly identical rent history with THE CITY, which also listed a “high rent vacancy” in 2020 despite the legal rent being at least $1,000 lower than the $2,774 threshold. 

In both cases, to pass the $2,774 mark the property owner would have had to spend between $30,000 and $40,000 in renovations all at once — called an Individual Apartment Improvement — and then started a new lease with a new tenant sometime precisely between April and June 2019, just before the new rent laws took effect.

THE CITY tracked down the previous tenants in the first of these two apartments, who said that they’d lived in the apartment for several years before moving out in June 2019 — leaving no time for renovations or starting a new tenancy before the law changed.

Witnick, the landlord at 750 Washington Ave., owns 36 buildings across Brooklyn and Manhattan. According to the property lookup tool Who Owns What, their buildings have lost 226 rent stabilized units since 2007 — or roughly 40% of their entire portfolio. 

Witnick did not respond to several requests for comment from THE CITY.

Even the new tenants paying high rents say their building leaves much to be desired.

“They don’t repair anything, they don’t fix anything,” said one tenant regarding the building’s management company, Brighton Management. 

The building has 78 unresolved housing violations, city Department of Housing Preservation and Development records show, including seven for mice and cockroach infestation and five for missing or defective smoke detectors, nearly five times higher than the typical per-apartment rate for New York City. 

The tenant recounted that when they moved in, “there was a gas leak and nobody notified us,” which led them to rely more on their fellow tenants for support. “That’s when I started meeting my neighbors.”

Narrowed Exits

If anything, New York City should have more rent regulated apartments now than it did before the 2019 law changed, not fewer.

According to data compiled by the city Rent Guidelines Board, more apartments were added to the rent stabilized housing stock than removed from it since 2018 — 31,382 gained and 30,788 lost. Most of those gains came through tax break programs. 

Apartments can legitimately leave rent regulation once those tax breaks expire after two decades or more, or in a few other ways.

A process called “substantial rehabilitation” allows landlords to take whole buildings out of rent stabilization if they can prove a “deteriorated state” and replace 75% of the building systems. Last month, tenants testified at a state housing agency hearing in favor of closing this loophole to rent regulation. But substantial rehabilitation removed only 593 apartments from rent regulation since 2019, the RGB figures show. 

Landlords have also converted rent stabilized buildings into co-ops and condos, but this practice has become increasingly rare given that the 2019 rent laws require 51% of existing tenants to consent to a conversion. Since 2019, these conversions have removed 1,561 apartments from rent regulation. Finally, landlords have combined an unknown number of regulated apartments in order to raise rents — in a process dubbed “Frankensteining” by tenant advocates.

That leaves the absence of thousands of apartments from the registration system since 2019 still unexplained. But DHCR, the state housing agency that oversees the process, does not automatically open an investigation when apartments vanish from the system. Rather, the agency “conducts outreach to building owners throughout the annual registration period to reinforce their obligation to file,” according to spokesperson Brian Butry. 

Over a decade ago, the state created a “proactive law enforcement office” called the Tenant Protection Unit (TPU) to encourage compliance with rent regulation laws and investigate rent stabilization fraud. Butry noted that since its creation, the TPU “sent registration demand letters to approximately 1,900 owners who had not properly registered,” leading to the re-registering of over 95,000 apartments. These stats equate to roughly 150 demand letters and 8,000 apartments on average each year since the TPU was founded. 

Tenants Give Up

Tenant advocates are eager to alert DHCR of signs an apartment may have improperly been removed from the rent regulation system — but they’re thwarted by tight restrictions on information. For starters, the state provides rent histories and stabilization status of apartments only to tenants or landlords, and only when requested.

HCR is currently working through a backlog of 3,428 pending rent overcharge cases across the state, according to an internal memo obtained by THE CITY. Those include complaints alleging instances of illegal deregulation. With 27 staff members processing all of New York State’s overcharge cases, the agency’s Office of Rent Administration faces delays due to “due process” — allowing landlords and tenants time to respond to claims — as well as “COVID-related office closures,” HCR spokesperson Butry says.

Tenant advocates rally before a hearing on regulations around rent-stabilized apartments, Nov. 15, 2022.

Those delays mean tenants often give up before their cases ever get heard — by which point they may have moved out of their apartment or New York.

“Because overcharge complaints are taking so long to determine, you are really forcing people to move out and have the overcharge claim determined after you leave,” says Alejandro Coriat, a tenant organizer in Upper Manhattan. Given these delays, more transient tenants who may not have as much “skin in the game” can be hesitant to take action, Coriat says. 

But Crown Heights Tenant Union, a tenant group working in the neighborhood of 750 Washington Avenue, has brought together “long-term and new tenants” to fight rent overcharge cases in their neighborhood “for 10 years and counting,” the organization said in a statement to THE CITY. 

Hidden Information

Some advocates claim that the state is not doing enough to enforce its own rules on rent regulation, and they argue the state is withholding data it is required to make public under the 2019 rent laws.  

“HCR has not practiced the level of data transparency that we believe was written into the Law,” testified tenant advocate Lucy Block at an HCR public hearing in November, referring to Part L of the 2019 rent laws. This section of the law requires HCR to “​​make publicly available, and on its website in machine readable format, the data used to tabulate the figures” in its annual report on rent administration. 

In its latest report, HCR included two links to data files but failed to share underlying data for most metrics. Notably, the report’s supporting data does not provide the number of rent stabilized units by building — even though the state supplies the same information to New York City’s tax collection agency. (Tenant groups have resorted to writing computer code to extract the data from PDF files of each building’s city property tax bills.)

“I want the data to be public, but I more so want them to hold landlords accountable and enforce registration requirements,” Block told THE CITY. For Block, who is senior research and data associate at ANHD, a consortium of community housing groups, HCR’s registration data contains “low hanging fruit” that can point to potential violations of rent regulation law that members of the public can find. 

“There should be an immediate flag if a landlord registers fewer rent stabilized units than they did since the passage of HSTPA,” said Block. “HCR should be looking into it immediately.”

The Crown Heights Tenant Union echoed the sentiment.

“Landlords commit rent fraud because they have operated with impunity, because they know that nobody in State or City government is watching,” read a statement from the union, “and enforcement of the law falls entirely on tenants’ shoulders.”

This story has been updated to include a response from a landlord organization.

window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({

appId : '252110943771470',

xfbml : true, version : 'v2.9' }); };

(function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Read original article here

Tesla, GM Among Car Makers Facing Senate Inquiry Into Possible Links to Uyghur Forced Labor

WASHINGTON—The Senate Finance Committee has opened an inquiry into whether auto makers including

Tesla Inc.

and

General Motors Co.

are using parts and materials made with forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region.

In a letter sent Thursday, the committee asked the chief executives of eight car manufacturers to provide detailed information on their supply chains to help determine any links to Xinjiang, where the U.S. government has alleged the use of forced labor involving the Uyghur ethnic minority and others.

The U.S. bans most imports from the region under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The letter to car companies cited a recent report from the U.K.’s Sheffield Hallam University that found evidence that global auto makers were using metals, batteries, wiring and wheels made in Xinjiang, or sourcing from companies that used Uyghur workers elsewhere in China.

According to that report, some car manufacturers “are unwittingly sourcing metals from the Uyghur region.” It said some of the greatest exposure comes from steel and aluminum parts as metals producers shift work to Xinjiang to take advantage of Chinese government subsidies and other incentives.

The U.S. ban on products linked to Xinjiang has already caused disruptions in the import of solar panels made there.

China has called Washington’s claim baseless. It disputes claims by human-rights groups that it mistreats Uyghurs by confining them in internment camps, with Beijing saying its efforts are aimed at fighting terrorism and providing vocational education.

Besides

Tesla

and GM, the letter signed by Finance Committee Chairman

Ron Wyden

(D., Ore.), was sent to

Ford Motor Co.

,

Mercedes-Benz Group AG

,

Honda Motor Co.

,

Toyota Motor Corp.

,

Volkswagen AG

and

Stellantis

NV, whose brands include Chrysler and Jeep.

GM said its policy prohibits any form of forced or involuntary labor, abusive treatment of employees or corrupt business practices in its supply chain.

“We actively monitor our global supply chain and conduct extensive due diligence, particularly where we identify or are made aware of potential violations of the law, our agreements, or our policies,“ the company said.

A Volkswagen spokesman said the company investigates any alleged violation of its policy, saying “serious violations such as forced labor could result in termination of the contract with the supplier.” A Stellantis spokesperson said the company is reviewing the letter and the claims made in the Sheffield Hallam study.

Other companies didn’t immediately provide comments.

“I recognize automobiles contain numerous parts sourced across the world and are subject to complex supply chains. However, this recognition cannot cause the United States to compromise its fundamental commitment to upholding human rights and U.S. law,” Mr. Wyden wrote.

The information requested includes supply-chain mapping and analysis of raw materials, mining, processing and parts manufacturing to determine links to Xinjiang, including manufacturing conducted in third countries such as Mexico and Canada. 

General Motors says its policy prohibits forced or involuntary labor, abusive treatment of employees or corrupt business practices in its supply chain.



Photo:

mandel ngan/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The lawmakers are also asking the auto makers if they had ever terminated, or threatened to terminate, relations with suppliers over possible links to Xinjiang, and if so, provide details of the cases.

The committee’s action comes as the Biden administration and bipartisan lawmakers increase their focus on alleged forced-labor practices in China as a key component of their confrontation with Beijing over its economic policy. The United Auto Workers has called on the auto industry to “shift its entire supply chain out of the region.” 

The State Department has said more than one million Uyghurs and other minorities are held in as many as 1,200 state-run internment camps in Xinjiang. Chinese authorities “use threats of physical violence” and other methods to force detainees to work in adjacent or off-site factories, according to the department.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection investigated 2,398 entries with a total value of $466 million during the fiscal year ended September, up from 1,469 entries in the previous year and 314 cases in fiscal 2000.

Analysts expect the CBP’s enforcement activity to further increase this year, with a strong bipartisan push for a tougher stance on the forced-labor issue.  

The researchers at Sheffield Hallam University found that more than 96 mining, processing, or manufacturing companies relevant to the auto sector are operating in Xinjiang. The researchers used publicly available sources, including corporate annual reports, websites, government directives, state media and customs records.

Write to Yuka Hayashi at Yuka.Hayashi@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

3M to Stop Making, Discontinue Use of ‘Forever Chemicals’

3M Co.

MMM -1.08%

said it would stop making so-called forever chemicals and cease using them by the end of 2025, as criticism and litigation grow over the chemicals’ alleged health and environmental impact.

3M Chief Executive

Mike Roman

said that the decision was influenced by increasing regulation of the chemicals known as PFAS, and a growing market for substitute options.

“Customers are taking note of PFAS regulations. They’re looking for alternatives,” Mr. Roman said in an interview. “We’re finding other solutions that have the same properties,” he said.

The company’s move involves chemicals used to make nonstick cookware, food packaging and other consumer and industrial products. 3M estimated its current annual sales of the chemicals total about $1.3 billion.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are commonly called “forever chemicals” because they take a long time to break down in the environment. Such chemicals include highly durable compounds long prized by manufacturers for their resistance to heat, and their ability to repel water, grease and stains.

In recent decades, research has linked exposure to some forms of the chemicals with health problems including kidney and testicular cancers, thyroid disease and high cholesterol, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The synthetic compounds have also been found in drinking water, including some municipal systems and private wells, as well as in rainwater around the world.

Regulators and environmental groups have taken aim at the chemicals, and thousands of lawsuits alleging contamination and illness have been filed in recent years targeting 3M and other manufacturers.

3M stopped producing some types of PFAS chemicals in the early 2000s but has continued to make other types, which the company has said can be safely produced and used. 3M said Tuesday it would stop making all fluoropolymers, fluorinated fluids and PFAS-based additive products by the end of 2025.

The company also said it would stop using PFAS across its products by the end of 2025, saying that it has already reduced its use of the substances over the past three years.

3M’s shares declined about 0.5% in midday trading, while major U.S. stock indexes slightly increased. The company’s stock has fallen about 29% so far this year, compared with a 19% decline in the S&P 500 stock index.

The EPA has said there are roughly 600 PFAS chemicals in commercial use today. The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical makers, said Tuesday that PFAS are integral to thousands of products in technologies including semiconductors, batteries for electric vehicles and 5G technology.

The group said its members are dedicated to the responsible production, use, management and disposal of PFAS chemistries, and that it would continue to work with the EPA toward policies that protect human health and allow the chemicals to continue to be used.

3M’s exit from PFAS was seen as a victory by environmental groups that for years have raised alarms over the chemicals.

Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said he didn’t think 3M will ever be held fully accountable for producing the chemicals. “But by exiting the market they have sent a powerful signal to the other polluters that it’s simply unaffordable to poison all of us,” Mr. Faber said.

3M’s net sales of PFAS chemicals represent about 4% of the company’s total annual sales, according to research by RBC Capital Markets. “This is a step in the right direction for 3M given all the regulatory scrutiny of PFAS chemicals,” RBC analysts wrote in a note to investors Tuesday.

Over the course of exiting the business of manufacturing the chemicals, 3M said it expects to incur pretax charges of about $1.3 billion to $2.3 billion, including a $700 million to $1 billion charge in the current quarter. The St. Paul, Minn.-based manufacturer said it intends to fulfill current contractual obligations during the transition period.

The EPA in August proposed designating two forms of PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the federal superfund law. The American Chemistry Council and companies such as 3M opposed the move, saying that it wasn’t based on the best available science and that it wouldn’t speed up remediation of contaminated sites.

Industry analysts said plant cleanup costs are likely to increase as the EPA uses broad discretion to impose cleanup terms under the Superfund designation. They said the hazardous substance designation also likely would hinder sales growth for the PFAS chemicals that 3M continues to produce, as customers look for alternatives.

3M pioneered the development of PFAS chemicals in the late 1940s, building on atomic research that used fluorine gas. By bonding fluorine with carbon, 3M found it could create durable compounds that could be adapted for use in consumer and industrial products.

3M’s plants where PFAS chemicals are produced have come under increasing regulatory focus for soil and water contamination. 3M has committed billions of dollars to clean up plant sites in recent years, including an $850 million settlement with the state of Minnesota related to a plant in Cottage Grove, Minn. The company also agreed earlier this year to provide about $600 million to remediate contamination connected to a plant in Belgium where PFAS chemicals have been produced.

3M also produces PFAS chemicals at plants in Alabama, Illinois and Germany.

3M phased out production of two PFAS chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, in the early 2000s. Those two forms of PFAS chemicals have been at the center of thousands of lawsuits targeting 3M and other manufacturers.

Write to Kris Maher at Kris.Maher@wsj.com and Bob Tita at robert.tita@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Wells Fargo to Pay Record CFPB Fine to Settle Allegations It Harmed Customers

Wells Fargo

WFC -1.04%

& Co. reached a $3.7 billion deal with regulators to resolve allegations that it harmed more than 16 million people with deposit accounts, auto loans and mortgages.

The settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau includes a $1.7 billion penalty, the agency’s largest-ever fine, and more than $2 billion in consumer restitution, the regulatory agency said Tuesday.

The consumer watchdog agency said the bank illegally assessed fees and interest charges on loans for cars and homes. Some consumers had their vehicles illegally repossessed while others had overdraft fees unlawfully applied, the agency said.

Wells Fargo’s regulatory troubles continue to ripple through the bank more than six years after its fake account scandal burst into public view. Other problems later surfaced across the San Francisco-based bank, including in its lending and deposit-taking businesses.

The CFPB settlement resolves a major penalty hanging over Wells Fargo but leaves it handcuffed by other regulators. The Federal Reserve has had a cap on the bank’s asset growth in place for nearly five years. Politicians continue to target the bank, and investors have filed a series of class-action lawsuits.

“Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist,” said CFPB Director

Rohit Chopra,

on a call with reporters Tuesday. He said the settlement “should not be read as a sign that Wells Fargo has moved past its longstanding problems.”

The bank had been negotiating with the CFPB for months in an effort to lump as many outstanding issues into the settlement as possible, according to people familiar with the matter. 

Much of the $2 billion remediation included in the settlement has already been doled out to customers. The bank, for example, has paid $1.3 billion to 11 million customers who had auto-loan servicing issues, the CFPB said.

Wells Fargo has been working for years to resolve a series of regulatory matters stemming from a fake-accounts scandal in 2016. Afterward, other problems surfaced across the bank, including in its mortgage and auto-lending businesses.

The CFPB said the bank’s actions span over a decade. Wells Fargo incorrectly applied auto-loan payments because of technology and compliance failures from 2011 through 2022, the agency said. Errors in its home loan modification process went on from 2011 to 2018, the agency said.

The bank sometimes charged overdraft fees even when a customer had enough funds available to make a debit-card transaction or ATM withdrawal, CFPB said. Wells Fargo is required to refund customers about $205 million in fees since the beginning of last year that weren’t yet reversed. CFPB will oversee that process.

Mr. Chopra, an appointee of President Biden, has said he plans to target repeat offenders. “Corporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business,” he said in a speech earlier this year. He has also sought to make his agency more adversarial toward financial firms.

The CFPB said Wells Fargo has accelerated efforts to clean up its act since 2020. Tied to the settlement, the agency will terminate one of the consent orders it had placed on the bank in 2016 and clarify that a 2018 consent order will terminate in no more than three years.

Wells Fargo, led by CEO Charlie Scharf, had signaled for months that it expected another large regulatory penalty.



Photo:

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

“This far-reaching agreement is an important milestone in our work to transform the operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us,” Chief Executive

Charlie Scharf

said in a statement.

Mr. Scharf was brought in to clean up the bank in 2019. He has overhauled the top executive ranks, cut its workforce and gave priority to remaking the bank’s back-end systems for managing internal controls and risk. 

The bank had signaled for months that it expected another big regulatory penalty, and it took a $2 billion charge in the third quarter tied to resolving long-running legal and regulatory issues. The bank said Tuesday that it expects an operating losses expense of $3.5 billion in the current quarter.

Shares of the bank fell about 1.5%.

Write to Ben Eisen at ben.eisen@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Microsoft Prepares to Go to Battle With FTC Over Activision Deal

Microsoft Corp.

MSFT -1.73%

has signaled it plans to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit to block its $75 billion deal for

Activision

ATVI -0.38%

Blizzard Inc., and is expected to argue that it is an underdog in videogame developing.

The personal-computing company has been publicizing its position for months, saying the acquisition wouldn’t threaten competition in the industry because Microsoft trails rivals in videogame consoles and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive in the future with the rise of cloud gaming.

Legal experts say Microsoft will likely build its case around those talking points as well as the fact that it is pursuing what is called a vertical merger, meaning it is buying a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor.

The deal “is fundamentally good for gamers, good for consumers, good for game developers and good for competition,” said

Brad Smith,

Microsoft’s president and vice chair, at the company’s annual shareholders meeting Tuesday. “We will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence.”

Microsoft has until Thursday to respond to the FTC’s suit, which was filed Dec. 8 in the agency’s administrative court.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers access Activision’s games beyond the Redmond, Wash., company’s own Xbox consoles and subscription services. The company could raise prices or degrade Activision’s content for people who don’t use its hardware to access the developer’s games, or even cut off access to the games entirely, the FTC said.

“If you can control an important source of content like Activision Blizzard, you have a variety of tools to leverage at your disposal,” which could stifle competition, an agency official said earlier this month.

At the shareholder meeting, Mr. Smith challenged the FTC’s concerns that Microsoft’s chief rival, PlayStation maker

Sony Group Corp.

, would be harmed by the deal, saying Sony has too big a lead in the high-performance console space to warrant protection.

Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer discusses growth in cloud gaming, gaming subscriptions and the planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

He further argued that the FTC’s case largely hinges on a worry that Microsoft could one day make games from Activision’s “Call of Duty”—which has been a hit among PlayStation users—exclusive to its Xbox system. Mr. Smith said Sony has about four times as many exclusive games on its consoles today as Microsoft has on its gaming machines.

Sony didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Microsoft said it made a last-minute offer to keep “Call of Duty” games accessible to others through a legally binding consent decree, augmenting an offer that the company had made months earlier to keep it accessible for at least 10 years.

A hearing would take place in the FTC’s administrative court in August, unless a resolution is reached before then. After the case is heard, legal experts say it could take months before a decision is handed down, and the losing side can then appeal it with the full commission. If an appeal is filed, the commission reviews the entire record anew and hears oral arguments, before deciding to uphold or overturn the administrative law judge’s order. At that point, if Microsoft loses, the company can appeal the commission’s decision to a federal appeals court.

“This is no way a slam-dunk case for the FTC,” said

Eric Talley,

a professor at Columbia Law School. “Even if the odds are a little bit long, they’re showing they’re willing to kick the tires to budge legal precedent a little bit more in their favor.”

Microsoft recently made a last-minute move to augment its offer to keep Activision’s ‘Call of Duty’ games accessible to others.



Photo:

Martin Meissner/Associated Press

Some analysts said Microsoft might want to drop the acquisition, which the company values at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash, to avoid executive distraction and expensive regulatory concessions. Microsoft has said it is committed to addressing regulators’ concerns.

While the litigation is continuing, Microsoft could offer the FTC additional commitments or implement them itself, said

Benjamin Sirota,

an antitrust attorney with the law firm Kobre & Kim LLP in New York. But to be satisfied, the government would have to enforce those commitments, which “takes resources and circumstances often change,” he said. The agency might also consider how “commitments that solve a competition problem now might not work in the future,” he added.

The FTC faces hurdles in its case because of the deal’s vertical-merger status, according to

David Hoppe,

mergers and acquisitions, tech and media attorney with Gamma Law in San Francisco.

“With these cases, it’s hard to prove consumer harm,” he said. “It’s not two competitors combining, in which case the harm to consumers is typically self-evident.”

The FTC has been clear about its intention to expand the scope of harm beyond a merger’s likely impact on consumer prices, Mr. Hoppe said. The agency might be concerned about actions that could indirectly put consumers at risk, he said, such as the misuse of sensitive competitor information by the combined enterprise. That information could give Microsoft a way to keep newcomers in videogame distribution from succeeding, which could result in fewer options for consumers, he said.

“It’s all about the network effect,” Mr. Hoppe said.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at Sarah.Needleman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried Charged With Criminal Fraud, Conspiracy

FTX founder

Sam Bankman-Fried

oversaw one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, a top federal prosecutor said in charging that the former chief executive stole billions of dollars from the crypto exchange’s customers while misleading investors and lenders.

An indictment by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, unsealed Tuesday, charges Mr. Bankman-Fried with eight counts of fraud. Prosecutors allege that he took FTX.com customers’ money to pay the expenses and debts of Alameda Research, an affiliated trading firm. Mr. Bankman-Fried is charged as well with conspiring to defraud the U.S. and violate campaign-finance rules by making illegal political contributions.

Damian Williams,

the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said he authorized the charges against Mr. Bankman-Fried last Wednesday and a grand jury voted on the indictment Friday.

“This investigation is very much ongoing, and it is moving very quickly,” Mr. Williams said at a press conference in Manhattan on Tuesday. “While this is our first public announcement, it will not be our last.”

John J. Ray III, the new chief executive of FTX, testified in front of a House committee Tuesday on the collapse of the crypto exchange. Photo: Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Separately, John J. Ray III, the new chief executive of FTX, said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that FTX incurred losses in excess of $7 billion. Mr. Ray, who oversaw the Enron Corp. bankruptcy early in the 2000s decade, said funds were taken from FTX and Alameda, an affiliated trading firm that incurred trading losses. 

Mr. Ray described Enron as having been brought down by sophisticated people whose machinations aimed to keep transactions secret. FTX presents as “old-fashioned embezzlement,” Mr. Ray said. “It’s taking money from customers and using it for your own purpose.”

Also Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in a civil lawsuit that Mr. Bankman-Fried diverted customer funds from the start of FTX to support Alameda and to make venture investments, real-estate purchases and political donations. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a lawsuit Tuesday linking his allegedly fraudulent conduct at Alameda and FTX to markets that the CFTC regulates.  

Sam Bankman-Fried

built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto,” SEC Chair

Gary Gensler

said.

The charges are the latest twist in a saga that has rattled the world of cryptocurrencies, a largely unregulated market that boomed during the pandemic but has been hammered this year by rising interest rates and the failure of several significant industry players. 

FTX, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, filed for bankruptcy last month after the firm ran out of cash and a merger with rival Binance collapsed. The firm’s failure marked a sudden fall from grace for Mr. Bankman-Fried, who portrayed FTX as a safer crypto exchange to use and cast himself as an ally of regulation.

In interviews since the filing, Mr. Bankman-Fried said he bore responsibility for FTX’s collapse but denied he committed any fraud.

Mark Cohen,

a lawyer for Mr. Bankman-Fried, said Tuesday that his client “is reviewing the charges with his legal team and considering all of his legal options.”

Mr. Bankman-Fried, 30 years old, was arrested Monday in the Bahamas. He appeared in court Tuesday in Nassau. He was denied bail and has been remanded to jail until Feb. 8, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A U.S. court official said that while the case had been assigned to a federal judge in Manhattan, there was no timing yet for Mr. Bankman-Fried’s extradition.

The tales of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s alleged misdeeds resonated with crypto customers around the world, even those who haven’t suffered significant losses as various firms by turns suspended withdrawals and collapsed.

Vasco Tagachi, a 42-year-old Portuguese-Sri Lankan trader based in China, said he felt a sigh of relief after learning of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s arrest. He said he had $57,423 in an FTX account this fall but was able to withdraw almost all of it just before the firm stopped honoring withdrawal requests.

“I had a little bit of tears in my eyes hearing that,” he said.

Prosecutors allege that from 2019 through November 2022, Mr. Bankman-Fried conspired with unnamed individuals to defraud customers and lenders. He provided false and misleading information to lenders on the financial condition of Alameda, according to the indictment.  

Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas on Monday, a day before he was expected to testify on the sudden collapse of FTX before the House Committee on Financial Services. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds

While the 14-page indictment was light on detailed allegations, it says that on Sept. 18, 2022, Mr. Bankman-Fried caused an email to be sent to an FTX investor in New York that contained false information about FTX’s financial condition. In June 2022, the indictment says, Mr. Bankman-Fried and others misappropriated FTX.com customer deposits to satisfy the loan obligations of Alameda.

Mr. Bankman-Fried is also accused of defrauding the Federal Election Commission starting in 2020 by conspiring with others to make illegal contributions to candidates and political committees in the names of other people. 

He and his associates contributed more than $70 million to election campaigns in recent years, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. He personally made $40 million in donations ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, most of which went to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups.

Mr. Ray, the FTX CEO, said FTX is investigating whether any loans taken by FTX executives were improperly used for campaign contributions.

Mr. Ray added that tracing fund flows from FTX to executives and third parties was difficult because of the lack of a paper trail for many corporate transactions at FTX.

“We’re dealing with a paperless bankruptcy,” he said. “It makes it very difficult to trace and track assets.”

The CFTC’s complaint contains a detailed discussion of events at Alameda and FTX and argues that the agency, generally less visible to the public than the SEC, also has jurisdiction over the case. While the CFTC regulates U.S. derivatives markets, it can go after fraud that affects some commodity markets.

Besides giving Alameda access to its customer deposits, FTX granted the crypto hedge fund controlled by Mr. Bankman-Fried a series of trading-execution privileges that provided it an edge against other traders on the platform, the CFTC lawsuit alleges.

The CFTC said that while institutional customers had their orders routed through the FTX system, Alameda was able “to bypass certain portions of the system and gain faster access.” It resulted in Alameda’s orders being received by FTX several milliseconds faster than those of other institutional clients.

The lawsuit also alleges that Alameda wasn’t subject to certain automated verification processes, including on whether it had available funds before executing a transaction, giving it further advantage on the speed of its trades.

The edge wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Bankman-Fried from thinking about shutting down Alameda in September, according to the CFTC complaint.

In a document titled “We came, we saw, we researched,” Mr. Bankman-Fried laid out reasons for shutting down Alameda, according to the CFTC lawsuit. Chief among them: Alameda wasn’t making enough money to justify its existence, he wrote.

The CFTC said the statements contradicted what Mr. Bankman-Fried and Alameda were saying publicly at the time.

Tuesday’s congressional hearing was the first public appearance for Mr. Ray on FTX’s bankruptcy. Mr. Bankman-Fried had been scheduled to appear virtually at the same hearing, before he was arrested in the Bahamas at the request of the U.S. government. Bahamian police have said that they would keep him in custody and that they are awaiting an extradition order from U.S. authorities.

“The operation of Alameda really depended, based on the way it was operated, on the use of customer funds,” Mr. Ray said, responding to questions from members of Congress at the hearing. “There were virtually no internal controls…whatsoever.”

He described numerous loans totaling billions of dollars taken out by Mr. Bankman-Fried from Alameda. 

“We have no information at this time as to what purpose or use of those funds were,” Mr. Ray added. He said Mr. Bankman-Fried had signed as the issuer and recipient for some of the loans.

Mr. Ray pushed back against recent statements made by Mr. Bankman-Fried that he had little to no involvement in the management of Alameda after passing control of the company to

Caroline Ellison

and

Sam Trabucco,

as well as Mr. Bankman-Fried’s statements that customer funds were passed to Alameda because of an accounting error.

“I don’t find those statements to be credible,” Mr. Ray said.

The Justice Department’s indictment of Mr. Bankman-Fried includes an array of charges with few supporting details, a tactic that could give federal prosecutors flexibility in navigating the rules involving extradition.

The charges against Mr. Bankman-Fried run the gamut from wire fraud to securities fraud conspiracy to conspiring to launder money and conspiring to break campaign-finance laws.

The statutes charged, with the exception of the campaign-finance offense, are enormously broad, said Rebecca Mermelstein, a former federal prosecutor who is now at O’Melveny & Myers LLP.

“By not being superspecific, you protect yourself later against an argument that charges relating to different criminal conduct are being added,” she said.

The arrest of Mr. Bankman-Fried is the latest case to highlight prosecutors’ push to bring white-collar cases to justice faster. 

Deputy U.S. Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in a September speech that making prosecutors and companies feel that they were “on the clock” in these cases was a key priority for the department. 

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried sat down with The Wall Street Journal to discuss what happened to the billions of dollars deposited by the exchange’s customers. Photo: Kenny Wassus/The Wall Street Journal

“We need to do more and move faster,” she said. “In individual prosecutions, speed is of the essence.”

Former federal prosecutors say that high-profile financial cases with lots of victims can increase the pressure on authorities to bring cases more quickly.

“Appearances matter when it comes to criminal justice,” said Mark Chutkow, a former federal prosecutor who is currently head of government investigations and corporate compliance at Dykema Gossett PLLC.  

If Mr. Bankman-Fried remains in the Bahamas while the details of his potential extradition to the U.S. are worked out, there is only one prison there: the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services, commonly known as Fox Hill Prison. 

Prison inmates reported removing human waste by buckets and developing bed sores from lying on the bare ground, according to a 2021 human-rights report on the Bahamas by the U.S. State Department. Cells were infested with rats, maggots and insects, the report said. 

Inmates are supposed to get an hour every day outside for exercise. Because of staff shortages and overcrowding, there are times when inmates will only get 30 minutes a week, said Romona Farquharson, an attorney in the Bahamas. 

The prison has different sections that separate those serving terms for violent crimes, for instance, from those who aren’t. Because of overcrowding, there have been instances in which inmates awaiting trial for minor crimes have been sent to the maximum-security facility, said Ms. Farquharson.

“I think they’ve got to be careful not to have him in really rough areas in the prison,” she said. 

—Angel Au-Yeung, Ben Foldy and Hannah Miao contributed to this article.

Write to Corinne Ramey at corinne.ramey@wsj.com, James Fanelli at james.fanelli@wsj.com, Dave Michaels at dave.michaels@wsj.com, Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com and Vicky Ge Huang at vicky.huang@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here