Just been alerted to threats I was previously totally unaware of:
Volt Typhoon Energy Grid Cyberattack Exposes US Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
The Volt Typhoon advanced persistent threat (APT) group maintained access to a Massachusetts power utility’s OT network for almost a year, highlighting critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Home – Security Spotlight – Volt Typhoon Energy Grid Cyberattack Exposes US Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
An Energy Grid Cyberattack on US has exposed vulnerabilities within the US power grid. Security researchers at Dragos uncovered a prolonged cyber intrusion by the Volt Typhoon advanced persistent threat (APT) group, a threat actor linked to China.
The intrusion targeted Littleton Electric Light and Water Departments (LELWD), a small public power utility in Massachusetts. Volt Typhoon maintained unauthorized access to LELWD’s operational technology (OT) network for nearly a year, from February to November 2024.
“One of the biggest challenges with cybersecurity in critical infrastructure is the long lifespan of the devices. Something that was designed and tested to the best practices available when it was released can easily become vulnerable to attacks using more sophisticated attacks later in its lifecycle.”Tim Mackey, head of software supply chain risk strategy at Black Duck, warned
Nathaniel Jones, vice president of threat research at Darktrace, added that the impact on Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) is a “continued and growing concern with the applications of AI-based capabilities for both offensive and defensive teams.”
The targeting of CNI entities suggests a strategic goal beyond simple data theft. Donovan Tindill, director of OT cybersecurity at DeNexus, noted that exfiltrating OT data allows attackers to gain geopolitical leverage:
Social engineering is a manipulation technique that exploits human psychology rather than software vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access to data or systems.
Phishing is the most common social engineering technique, but pretexting, baiting, vishing, and tailgating are also widely used.
The human element is a factor in about 60% of data breaches, according to the Verizon 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR).
Generative AI has made social engineering attacks faster to produce and harder to detect, particularly through AI-generated phishing emails and deepfake voice or video impersonation.
No single technical control stops social engineering. Effective defense combines employee training, verification protocols, and data-level controls that limit what an attacker can do even after a successful manipulation.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced coordinated nationwide law enforcement actions on June 30, 2025, targeting North Korean remote information technology workers’ illicit revenue generation schemes that have defrauded American companies and funded the DPRK’s weapons programs.
Summary 1. The U.S. DOJ conducted coordinated enforcement across 16 states on June 30, 2025, targeting North Korean remote IT workers funding DPRK weapons programs. 2. Operation resulted in 29 financial account seizures, 21 website takedowns, 200 computer seizures, and searches at 29 "laptop farms." 3. North Korean operatives infiltrated 100+ U.S. companies, generating $5+ million illicitly while causing $3+ million in damages. 4. Schemes involved stealing classified defense data under ITAR regulations and $900,000+ in cryptocurrency theft from blockchain companies.
The comprehensive enforcement action spanned 16 states, resulting in two federal indictments, one arrest, and the seizure of 29 financial accounts containing tens of thousands of dollars, 21 fraudulent websites, and approximately 200 computers.
This is an extract from a piece by a researcher in The Conversation:
Most plans for orbital data centres depend on the future success of SpaceX’s heavy-lift Starship. But every Starship launch burns over 1,000 tonnes of liquid methane, releasing around 80,000 tonnes of CO₂ (about the same as what 20,000 cars emit in a year). The warming associated with soot emissions in the upper atmosphere is 500 times more intense than the same emissions at ground level. We know soot from rockets reduces stratospheric ozone – the stuff shielding us from harmful UV rays. In the lower atmosphere, most soot falls back to Earth in weeks. In the stratosphere, soot stays there for up to four years, prolonging its damaging effects.
While it is always sunny in space, solar panels degrade much quicker there. Microchips are also easily damaged, falling prey to a phenomenon known as “bit flipping” – when high-energy particles rewrite memory hardware randomly changing data from 1 to 0. Retrieving busted hardware from space is not financially viable. SpaceX satellites have a five-year shelf life before being incinerated as they fall back to Earth. The environmental impacts of things burning up in the atmosphere are not well known. Musk’s AI satellites would be connected by lasers. Should any one of the million or so satellites become untethered and collide with another, it would create further debris, creating more risk of collisions, more debris, and so on. Scientists call this the Kesler Syndrome and worry that orbital debris fields could hinder human activities in space for a very long time.
Orbital data centres would have a huge water footprint too. To catch toxic dust and protect their concrete launch pad from heat damage, a typical spaceport uses a deluge system releasing around 2 million litres of water with every launch. SpaceX has repeatedly broken environmental laws with its deluge system, allowing contaminated run-off from Starship launches to enter protected waters off the coast of Texas.
Some suggest these sci-fi schemes are designed to prop up SpaceX’s teetering stock price, rather than humanity’s computing needs. Others see orbital data centres as just one of many ambitious visions to tackle the environmental costs of AI. Either way, my research suggests this quest to off-world the industry’s headaches will have profound implications that are not well understood.
Here is an extract from the moving, honest book ‘Israel – what went wrong?’by Omer Bartov
When the first intifada, or uprising, broke out, in late 1987, I was teaching at Tel Aviv University. I was appalled by Minister of Defense Yitzhak Rabin’s instruction to the IDF to “break the arms and legs” of Palestinian youths who were throwing rocks at heavily armed troops. I wrote a letter to him warning that, based on my research on the indoctrination of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, I feared that under his leadership the IDF was heading down a similarly slippery slope. As my research had shown, young German men, even before their conscription, had internalized core elements of Nazi ideology, especially the view that the “subhuman” Slav masses, led by insidious Bolshevik Jews, were threatening Germany and the rest of the civilized world with destruction, and that therefore Germany had the right and duty to create for itself a “living space” in the East and to decimate or enslave that region’s population. This worldview was then further inculcated into the troops, so that by the time they marched into the Soviet Union, they perceived their enemies through that prism. The fierce resistance put up by the Red Army only confirmed the need to utterly destroy Soviet soldiers and civilians alike, most especially the Jews, who were seen as the main instigators of Bolshevism. The more destruction the German troops wrought, the more fearful they became of the revenge they could expect if their enemies prevailed. The result was the killing of up to twenty-seven million Soviet soldiers and citizens.
To my astonishment, a few days after writing to Rabin, I received a one-line response from him, chiding me for daring to compare the IDF to the German military. This gave me the opportunity to write him a more detailed letter, explaining my research and my anxiety about using the IDF as a tool of oppression against unarmed occupied civilians. Rabin responded again, with the same statement: “How dare you compare the IDF to the Wehrmacht.” In retrospect, I believe this exchange reveals something about his subsequent intellectual journey. For as we know from his later engagement in the Oslo peace process, however flawed, he did eventually recognize that in the long run Israel could not sustain the military, political, and moral price of the occupation.
And as Spain wins the World Cup, it is an opportunity to praise Spain for proving it is not expressing antisemitism when it speaks out against the genocide in Gaza:
The actor told Mehdi that it was important to be able to speak out against what he called the “genocide” in Gaza and the “war criminal” Benjamin Netanyahu without being accused of, or engaging in, antisemitism. In fact, the conversation touched on everything from the “crazy impunity” enjoyed by Israel to the way in which Donald Trump and Javier Milei don’t represent their people to the ridiculously high ticket price at World Cup games in 2026.
support for Israel has often been framed within the context of shared democratic values and mutual interests in combating terrorism and promoting stability in the region.
Over the decades, the UK has maintained a complex relationship with Israel, balancing its support for Israel’s right to defend itself with the need to address Palestinian rights and aspirations. This balancing act has often placed the UK in a challenging position on the international stage, especially with regards to its relationships with Arab nations and its commitment to the peace process.
At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948
Jewish voters who were already concerned about Zohran Mamdani’s attitude toward Israel have heightened anxiety after it was recently revealed that he said, “When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.” The statement has also renewed questions about the Israeli military’s relationship with police departments across the U.S.
Doctors’ lives were put at risk during the covid pandemic because of shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and a lack of adequate planning, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has concluded.
The inquiry chair, Heather Hallett, also criticised the “vast” waste of taxpayers’ money. Of the £14.9bn spent on PPE by the UK government and devolved administrations during the pandemic, nearly two thirds—almost £10bn—went unused.
“These figures demand a fundamental change in how the UK prepares for emergency procurement,” said Hallett.1 Her scathing report, focusing on procurement, found that the plans in place to respond to a pandemic were inadequate, and those that did exist had not been properly stress tested.
The existing stockpile of PPE and other equipment for the UK was “inadequate to meet demand,” and the UK government and devolved administrations were “wholly unprepared” to rapidly increase the scale and speed of procurement and distribution operations, said Hallett.
The lack of plans and infrastructure meant that officials had been unable to respond with sufficient speed and efficiency to problems such as which and how much equipment to buy, at what prices, and how it should be distributed. This had resulted in overbuying and the purchase of substandard equipment that had to be destroyed, said the report.
“The technology and data systems for emergency procurement and distribution were outdated. These were systemic failures that could have been avoided,” said Hallett.
One of Hallett’s main recommendations (box) is for the UK to diversify its international supplier base for PPE and healthcare equipment, which is mainly sourced from manufacturers in China, and to increase its own domestic industrial resilience. The UK should also invest in high quality information systems and modern technology when buying and distributing PPE, she concluded.
3 yrs ago, The Guardian reported where more dubious tax payers funds left the UK to the US:
US banker paid £73m dividend in 2021 after firm won millions in UK Covid contracts
This article is more than 3 years old
Banks Bourne, sole owner of Tanner Pharma in North Carolina, took sum from Tanner’s UK arm, records show
Sam Bright
Thu 25 May 2023 15.00 BSTShare
An American banker was paid a £73m dividend in 2021 after his firm won hundreds of millions in Covid contracts, figures show.
Banks Bourne, the sole owner of the medical company Tanner Pharma, took the sum from Tanner’s UK division, Companies House records show.
While Tanner Pharma registered profits of £1.4m in 2019, this figure hit £38.8m in 2020 and £64m in 2021. According to the company’s latest accounts, released in March, this financial growth was driven largely by a Covid windfall, with the firm paid huge sums by the UK government.
Turnover increased from £192m in 2020 to £468.5m in 2021, or by 144%, the latest accounts state. They say “this increase was largely the result of higher-volume contracts” with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) as the company “supported the UK government’s urgent response to Sars-CoV-2 pandemic”.
Tanner Pharma’s profit margin therefore was 19.8% in 2020 and 13.7% in 2021.
Government records show that in 2020 and 2021 Tanner Pharma was awarded contracts worth £865m from the UKHSA and the DHSC for the provision of lateral flow tests. The largest contract during this period was valued at up to £243m – more than 84 times the firm’s total turnover of £2.9m in 2019.
The company’s accounts show that it earned 98.3% of its turnover in 2021 and 93.7% in 2020 from the UK government.
Tanner Pharma continued to be awarded UK Covid contracts in 2022, with its largest single contract coming in February 2022, worth up to £595m for the provision of lateral flow tests to the UKHSA. In total, the firm was awarded UK Covid contracts worth just shy of £1.5bn – the fourth largest total of any firm.
The £8.5 million flat purchased by financier Tim Horlick in London has been frozen as part of a criminal investigation linked to a controversial personal protective equipment (PPE) deal. Horlick, 64, is the founder of Ayanda Capital, the company awarded a significant government contract to supply PPE during the pandemic. This deal, valued at £255 million, has come under scrutiny due to allegations regarding the quality of the masks supplied.
UK shameful waste of tax payers funds in defense spending:
Example 2022:
The MOD’s £300bn waste of public money
The British public is facing a new round of austerity while the Ministry of Defence squanders vast sums of money on weapons that are unusable in any foreseeable conflict.
To take one current example: the ministry has spent more than £3bn of the public’s money, with the prospect of having to pay out £2bn more, on an armoured car called Ajax. The vehicle, tests show, deafens and injures the occupants, it cannot reverse over obstacles more than 20 centimetres high, and is too unwieldy to fit in the RAF’s transport aircraft.
The project was conceived in 2010 and due to be completed in 2017. By December 2021 the MoD had paid £3.2bn for just 26 Ajax vehicles, none of which it can use.
Defence minister Alec Shelbrooke said recently he “cannot determine a realistic timetable” about when the Ajax would be operational. Some defence industry commentators say it never will be.
The company pocketing billions from the Ajax is the UK subsidiary of the American company, General Dynamics. The company’s manager of the project is Carew Wilks, a former army general in charge of the MoD’s “land equipment” department. General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the army, was appointed a non-executive director of the company.
…………….
One of Britain’s two aircraft carriers is currently being repaired. (Photo: MOD)
The allure of notionally prestigious weapons systems has seduced Labour as much as the Conservatives. Gordon Brown enthusiastically backed Blair’s agreement to build two aircraft carriers, the largest warships built for the Royal Navy, in Rosyth, close to Brown’s Scottish constituency.
Their combined cost, initially estimated at less than £4bn, rose to more than £6bn.
They are designed to carry the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of US F35 Lightning II jets. This version of Lockheed Martin’s F35s has a shorter range and smaller payload than the alternative catapult and arrester gear (“cats and traps”) version that was abandoned on grounds of cost.
The MoD’s plan to buy 48 jets for the two carriers – the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales – is estimated to cost £18.8bn over 30 years.
The carriers are extremely vulnerable to long range missiles being developed notably by China, making a mockery of the “show of strength” hailed by the MoD when the Queen Elizabeth was deployed to the Pacific in 2021.
Lord Richards, the former chief of the defence staff, described the carriers to me as “behemoths…unaffordable vulnerable metal cans”.
And at precisely the moment we are at greatest risk of war with Russia, one of the carriers is marooned in Rosyth, being repaired for a leaking propeller – a problem that has persistently plagued the vessel.
The government says the Prince of Wales carrier has spent 267 days at sea and 193 days undergoing repairs since it was commissioned in December 2019.
Watchkeeper is a large unarmed drone operated by the British Army rather than the RAF. It is assigned to the Royal Artillery and its primary purpose is to aid the targeting of artillery and rocket strikes.
Watchkeeper was built jointly by Thales UK and the Israeli company Elbit Systems and is based on the Elbit’s Hermes 450 drone. Fifty-four Watchkeepers were built under a £1 billion contract and were originally due to be in service in 2011. Much delayed, a small number of Watchkeepers were deployed to Afghanistan in the final weeks of UK operations there in late 2014.
Eight Watchkeeper drones have crashed in the UK during testing or training exercises since 2014.
Watchkeepers were deployed to help spot refugees attempting to cross the Channel in September 2020, but the operation was quietly ended the following month.
In September 2022, Ministers stated that £1.31 billion had been spent on Watchkeeper to date and in April 2024, the Watchkeeper was branded ‘an unmitigated disaster’ by former MoD Minister Marc Francois and member of the Defence Select Committee.
In November 2024, the Defence Secretary John Healey announced in the House of Commons that the UK was scrapping the entire Watchkeeper fleet in order to save funds. While it was initially suggested the drones could be withdrawn by the end of 2024, a new contract announcement indicated the drones would continue to be in service until March 2027.
Globally, tax payers are exploited by those determined to escape paying tax which would have, if paid, contributed to benefitting the living standards of their fellow humans.
“Bleeding the beast” refers to a practice where individuals or groups exploit government funds for purposes not intended by the government, often associated with polygamous communities. waywordradio.org
The US tax fraud list:
Tax fraud and tax evasion resulting in underpayment can take many forms, including:
Underreporting of income due to investment in offshore tax havens
Improperly transferring tax benefits from one company to another by artificially depressing the income reported by U.S. entities based on manipulation of “transfer pricing” (e.g., the prices that one subsidiary charges to another subsidiary for goods or services)
Abusive tax shelters that lack any real economic purpose other than the evasion of taxes, including “Guam Trusts,” debt straddles, lease-in/lease-out transactions, S-Corp ESOP transactions, and off-shore deferred compensation arrangements.
Circular transactions in which funds are moved from one company to another to generate artificial tax benefits
Manipulation of the recognition of revenue or profits to maximize tax benefits
Fraudulent claims for tax credits or deductions, including tax credits for renewable energy investments and sales.
Fraudulent assertions of tax-exempt status, including by organizations engaged in lobbying or other activities that prevent lawful assertion of tax-exempt status.
Such scrutiny has led to new adaptations of the offshore tax haven industry where trillions of uncollected taxpayers funds reside.
To an outsider, offshore tax havens might look like minor jurisdictions on a map, but for the world’s most wealthy, they are anything but, acting as mechanisms for protecting and controlling vast sums of money. There has always been a distance between wealth and visibility, whether through the turquoise shores of the Cayman Islands or the golden vaults of Swiss banks. But in a sudden reversal, these very havens that once promised discretion and protection no longer work quite like they used to.
Offshore finance rarely disappears. Instead, it adapts to changing rules and oversight, while steadily continuing to grow in scale. Estimates suggest that between $21trn and $32trn of global financial assets are now held offshore, although the confidentiality of these jurisdictions makes reliable figures few and far between. The Tax Justice Network believes that the world loses around $427bn in tax revenue every single year to these illicit arrangements.
But tax avoidance is not the simple affair it once was. Traditional secrecy jurisdictions face greater pressure under OECD’s Global Minimum Tax and Reporting Standard, which has made the once convenient offshore loophole more visible and costly. In response, the ultra-wealthy are not retreating, they are adapting.
When old tricks stop working, new ones take shape. Today’s high-net-worth individuals find refuge in dual passports, tax-friendly residencies, DeFi platforms and the odd private island thrown in for good measure. Some of these choices offer genuine financial advantages; others arguably offer the illusion of escape. Still, the inventiveness of these workarounds suggests that the offshore mindset remains firmly intact, only now it is just more scattered across the globe and less reliant on the familiar offshore havens.
So far, some of Jeffrey Epstein files reveal his use of charities as tax avoidance vehicles for his clients:
By 2025 the public record most reliably links Epstein’s remaining estate activity to Gratitude America’s post‑conviction donations and to transfers into Les Wexner’s philanthropic entities, while litigation and settlements with the U.S. Virgin Islands and victims substantially reduced the estate’s size and complicated distributions [1][2][3][7]. However, recent document dumps are incomplete and redacted, and reporting does not provide a definitive, public accounting of every remaining dollar or a full list of charities ultimately receiving estate funds — the chain of custody for many transfers remains contested and under review [5][6].
When you hear about billionaires giving away millions to charity, it’s easy to picture them as selfless philanthropists. But what if that generosity is also a clever financial strategy? The truth is, many wealthy individuals have mastered the art of using charitable giving as a tool to minimize their tax bills. This isn’t just about feeling good or making a difference—it’s about leveraging the tax code to keep more of their wealth. Understanding how rich people weaponize generosity for tax loopholes can help you spot these tactics and even use some of them (ethically) in your own financial planning. Whether you’re curious, skeptical, or just want to make smarter money moves, this article will pull back the curtain on the intersection of charity and tax savings.
1. Donor-Advised Funds: The Charitable Piggy Bank
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) are one of the most popular ways the wealthy weaponize generosity for tax loopholes. Here’s how it works: you donate cash, stocks, or other assets to a DAF, get an immediate tax deduction, and then decide later which charities actually receive the money. This means you can lock in a big tax break in a high-income year, but take your time doling out the funds. According to the National Philanthropic Trust, DAFs held over $229 billion in assets in 2022, and these funds’ grants are growing yearly. For the rich, DAFs are like a charitable savings account with major tax perks.
2. Appreciated Assets: Giving Away Gains, Not Cash
Instead of writing a check, wealthy donors often give appreciated assets—like stocks or real estate—to charity. Why? Because when you donate an asset that’s increased in value, you avoid paying capital gains tax on the appreciation. Plus, you get a deduction for the asset’s full market value. For example, if you bought stock for $10,000 that’s now worth $50,000, donating it lets you skip the tax on the $40,000 gain and claim a $50,000 deduction. This double benefit is a classic way rich people weaponize generosity for tax loopholes, and it’s perfectly legal.
How a Pentagon contractor built a global empire — and a massive tax evasion scheme
Douglas Edelman rose from owning a bar in Kyrgyzstan to winning $7 billion in defense contracts, only to plead guilty this week to hiding his fortune from U.S. tax authorities.
The Post Office has awarded an additional 12-month contract to Fujitsu to extend the bridge between the Japanese supplier and a replacement taking over the controversial Horizon service.
The Post Office does not expect to find a supplier to take over the running of Horizon before July next year, which means its £40m December 2024 contract, which extended the agreement with Fujitsu until March 2026, is inadequate.
Fujitsu will be paid another £41m to continue to supply and support the software at the centre of the Post Office scandal until at least March 2027. But that will not be the end of Horizon itself, which will be used until a replacement is developed by a yet-to-be contracted supplier.
“Post Office has agreed with Fujitsu a one-year bridging extension to the Horizon contract for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027,” said a Post Office spokesperson. “We are committed to moving away from Fujitsu and off the Horizon system as soon as possible. We are bringing in a different supplier to take over Horizon while a new system is developed, and this process is well underway.”
Attempts to replace the Horizon system have already seen multiple extensions and a major in-house project scrapped after a government report last year found that budgets ballooned from £180m to £1.1bn.
A government contract tender published in May offered £323m to a “replacement services provider” to take over the existing Horizon services. The second part of the contract, worth £169m, was for a commercial off-the shelf electronic point of sale software provider to provide Horizon’s replacement.
The Post Office requested a four-year extension of the Horizon contract in November 2024, as the IT supplier’s European boss arrived to give evidence at the Post Office scandal public inquiry. Paul Patterson, Fujitsu’s head of Europe, told the public inquiry that any Horizon contract extension must be as short as possible and said that he did not trust the Post Office.
During his appearance at the public inquiry, Fujitsu’s Patterson said he had major concerns about the continued use of the Horizon system, which has reached its “end of life”, adding that long extensions might not be possible. He said that some parts of Horizon are so old that Fujitsu doesn’t want to turn them off as it is uncertain what would happen if it did.
Horizon continues to produce erratic figures in branch accounts, which the Post Office can’t explain, with millions of pounds being written off. According to a freedom of information response to Computer Weekly from the Post Office, in the past two years, subpostmasters identified more than 16,000 discrepancies, including both account shortfalls and surpluses.
The taxpayer-owned business wrote off £11.6m in unidentified shortfalls, subsequently recorded on the Horizon system as a loss, in its most recent financial year. In the previous year, it wrote off £10.4m as losses for the same reason.
There is anger among the public and politicians over the Post Office and government’s reliance on Fujitsu for IT services in light of the suppliers role in the Post Office scandal.
A government spokesperson said: “We are working as quickly as possible to ensure the Post Office has the technology it needs, including replacing Horizon, as a vital part of the company’s wider transformation.
“The fact they still use the Horizon system indicates past under-investment, which can’t be rectified overnight, so we need to ensure postmasters have the tools they need to continue serving their customers in the interim.”
The Post Office scandal was first exposed by Computer Weekly in 2009, revealing the stories of seven subpostmasters and the problems they suffered due to Horizon accounting software, which led to the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British history (see below timeline of Computer Weekly articles about the scandal since 2009).
The scandal is then tossed, like a hot potato, to a foreign billionaire:
What do we know about Royal Mail’s new owner?
ByLora Jones
Business reporter, BBC News
Published16 December 2024
Updated 17 December 2024
Daniel Křetínský is set to become the new owner of Royal Mail after the sale of its parent firm was approved by the government.
The Czech entrepreneur has been described as a “quiet sphinx” for his inscrutable style. So who is the low-key billionaire and what could new ownership mean for this historic British company?
According to the Sunday Times Rich List, the 49-year-old is now worth £6bn – up £2bn on 2023.
He has adopted a low-profile approach to his business dealings, but what we do know about Mr Křetínský is that he made a large part of his money in Central and Eastern European energy via a labyrinthine structure of companies.
This includes Eustream, which transports Russian gas via pipelines that run through Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
In the UK, Mr Křetínský has built up quite a portfolio in well-known brands through Vesa Equity Investment, a private firm which is registered in Luxembourg.
He holds big stakes in supermarket group Sainsbury’s and the sportswear retailer Footlocker.
And, like others in his wealth bracket, he has a football club or two. These include Sparta Prague in his home country, as well as Premier League club West Ham United, in which he holds a 27% stake.
British Steel is set to be brought into public ownership, the prime minister has announced.
Sir Keir Starmer said legislation would be brought forward this week to give the government powers to take “full ownership of British Steel”, subject to a public interest test.
The move comes after the government seized control of British Steel’s Scunthorpe steelworks from its Chinese owners Jingye in April last year in order to halt the potential closure of its blast furnaces.
Sir Keir said the government had held talks with Jingye, but that a “commercial sale has not been possible, and now a public test could be met”.
“Public ownership is in the public interest”, the prime minister said in a speech aiming to see off a leadership challenge following Labour’s poor election results.
He said he would prove his “doubters” wrong and that for the British people, “change cannot come quickly enough”.
The steelmaking industry welcomed the announcement. Gareth Stace, director-general of industry body UK Steel, said it provided “vital certainty” for the 2,700 workforce and the company’s customers.
Private Eye is published every two weeks, and in recent times each fortnightly issue has brought a new revelation of unusual activity – mostly of the financial kind – at Teesworks Ltd and the former SSI 2,600 acre steelworks site at Redcar, now called Teesworks.
The current issue is no exception. Richard Brooks who writes the In The Back section, reported on the sale of publicly – owned Teesworks property by South Tees Developments Ltd, a subsidiary of South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) – to Teesworks Ltd. STDC in turn is a body controlled by Tees Valley Combined Authority. Teesworks and other sites form part of PM Rishi Sunak’s freeport – the brainchild of Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen.
Sell-off for a ridiculous price
The political magazine reported that land amounting to some 105 acres – which cost £100mn of public money to regenerate – has been sold by South Tees Developments Ltd at £1 per acre, a total of £110.35 (plus VAT). The two transactions took place in November and December last year. The main beneficiaries are the business leaders who now own 90% of Teesworks Ltd.
The firm was set up by STDC, a public body under Tees Valley Combined Authority, to remediate and redevelop the derelict land. The corporation created Teesworks Ltd as a joint venture, gifting half its shares to four local developers led by Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney. Then in November 2021 a further 40% of the company was transferred to interests controlled by Musgrave and Corney again without charge, leaving STDC with just 10% of the firm they had created.
The freehold sales to Teesworks Ltd are under an option to buy the land of South Bank Quay currently being developed and the land to the south of it also undergoing publicly funded regeneration. The sites will be rented by Korean wind turbine monopile manufacturers SeAH.
An original condition of the shares transfer was that the private shareholders would foot the bill for ongoing demolition and remediation work, but that condition has now been waived and the public purse via STDC will shoulder those future costs.
Demolition and remediation at Teesworks has so far cost STDC £450mn.
But up to now Musgrave and his pals have paid very little for their interest. The official version for their involvement is that they had purchased a strip of land deemed crucial to the Teesworks site, for £500,000.
The developers have already made their return. Private Eye estimated that £40mn from the sale of metal scrap on the land has so far been released to the four developers. The Private Eye report of the fire-sale of land remediated from the public purse is a serious accusation, warranting an official response.
And the mayor’s response?
Yet there has been no formal rebuttal from the mayor’s office. Our enquiries to his press office were not answered. The only response we can see is Houchen’s posts on Facebook. In response to a comment on his Facebook page – “No one on here read Private Eye then?” – Houchen wrote:
“Only people who enjoy comics and want to an escape from reality..
“It’s all public already. Accounts fully audited and published on Companies House. We have audit reports and scrutiny reports that are investigated on a monthly basis by councillors from across the region from all parties….
“I talk all the time about how much money we secured from government, the fact the [Teesworks] site had hundreds of millions in liabilities and the jobs we’re creating…
“There are so many [false reports] I’d just spend my whole time refuting nonsense. I have actually provided evidence and truth to them directly but they ignore that and print rubbish instead almost like Private Eye is a socialist comic..
“But as an example, STDC will make more than £40m from SeAH and that doesn’t include the millions a year in business rates. It’s wrong to say STDC got just over £100 😂 utter nonsense.”
Houchen’s comments were relayed to Richard Brooks on Twitter, who tweeted:
Why the secrecy?
So apart from the Facebook reactions it’s a no comment from Houchen. It begs the question – why the secrecy?
One of Houchen’s comments bends the truth. He posted:
“Accounts fully audited and published on Companies House”
But Teeswork’s accounts are not audited, they’re simply “unaudited financial statements” meaning that an auditor has not gone through the financial records with a fine toothcomb. But then Teesworks is no longer publicly owned.
Houchen and others have argued that the developers are carrying the site’s ‘liabilities’, but the developers will not be liable for any debts of the limited company and they have not invested any of their own money.
Teesworks Ltd
Then there’s the unusual origins of Teesworks Ltd which did not see the light of day as a joint venture between the developers and the STDC. In fact the company was first incorporated in December 2019 as South Tees Enterprise Ltd, equally co-owned by Northern Land Management Ltd (Martin Corney’s firm) and Musgrave’s J C Musgrave Capital Ltd. The registered office was at Corney’s mansion – Southlands in Eaglescliffe, near Stockton.
The company’s SIC code which denotes their business activity was 52101: “Operation of warehousing and storage facilities for water transport activities”. Only later was the remediation role added.
The two business owners ceased to be the controlling parties in July 2020 after two more shares were created and transferred to STDC. At the same time the company name was changed to Teesworks. So the joint venture was born from a Musgrave-Corney partnership.
In November 2021 an official notice in the government’s Gazette announced the company’s compulsory strike-off from the public register, only to be withdrawn later. That month the developers’ share of Teesworks’ ownership rose from 50% to 90%.
All the corporate documents confirm that Teesworks has never employed anyone.
Why Teesworks Ltd was created by the developers seems baffling, when STDC has access to accountants, and online company formation agents could provide an ‘off the shelf’ ready-made firm in seconds for a few pounds. It seems that the Teesworks vehicle was an unused company that was given a new name and role.
That’s not unusual. But it does beg a few questions. If the joint venture was created from the business owners’ own folder of redundant companies, were other potential business partners already ruled out? Was there any formal process to find and recruit joint venture partners? Who was short-listed? How were they screened? Where is the due diligence?
You might ask what discussions were held about the joint venture at STDC board meetings. Given the cryptic minutes and withheld documents you can ask away.
Julia Mazza grew up in Middlesbrough, the descendant of Irish Famine refugee ironworkers and a Tyne shipyard union organiser. She is in awe of how the North East industrial workers, enduring intense hardship, still managed to create a formidable labour movement. Retired after a career in campaigns and commercial and policy research, she now lives in London
We are a not-for-profit citizen journalism publication. Our aim is to publish well-written, fact-based articles and opinion pieces on subjects that are of interest to people in the North East and beyond.
Ben Houchen, Baron Houchen of High Leven (born 9 December 1986) is a British Conservative politician and life peer. He has been Tees Valley Mayor since 2017, winning the inaugural mayoral election in the combined authority. Houchen was re-elected in 2021 and won a third term in 2024. As mayor, Houchen represents the five local authority areas in the Tees Valley: Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland, Hartlepool, and Darlington, and he also acts as chairman of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the body tasked with driving economic growth and job creation in the area. After the May 2024 local elections, Houchen was the Conservative Party’s only combined authority mayor in England, until Paul Bristow won the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election in May 2025.
Previously unreported emails – first identified by Tax Policy Associates – show Peter Mandelson discussing with his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein, a tax avoidance structure for the purchase of a £2m1 Rio apartment, involving a Panama company.
Mr Mandelson told us that he has no recollection of the proposal, or knowledge as to the authenticity of the documents. He added that neither he nor his husband have ever owned property in Brazil, and that he has no association with any company in Panama, and holds no funds offshore.
After receiving that response, we identified a company, incorporated in Rio de Janeiro for the purpose of holding real estate, of which Mr Mandelson and his husband were the directors. Mr Mandelson has denied to us that he held Brazilian property through the company.
The emails
The email chain starts in October 2010, with Peter Mandelson deciding to buy an apartment in Rio, and sending emails asking for advice from his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein:
About three weeks later, the documents show Mr Mandelson receiving approval from HSBC Private Bank for a loan of £1.68m to acquire the Rio apartment, secured on Mr Mandelson’s £2.4m London home.
Things progressed slowly, which is not unusual in Brazilian property transactions. In March 2011, Mr Mandelson wrote to Mr Epstein describing a highly unusual tax structure:
The dispute over the canal is just the latest chapter of Trump drama in Panama.
Before and throughout his first term in the White House, a high-profile Trump hotel project in the country was a seemingly unending source of scandal and financial problems, ranging from a partner’s bankruptcy to money-laundering allegations to long-running legal battles.
In 2011, Trump and his business partners cut the ribbon on the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, a 70-story, sail-shaped skyscraper that loomed large over Panama City and the Trump Organization itself.
The tower, which was first conceived way back in 2005, was Trump’s first international hotel venture and one of the tallest buildings in Latin America.
Trump capital didn’t go towards building the development itself, but the tower used the Trump name for branding, and companies controlled by the Trump Organization would manage the property, which contained a casino, hotel rooms and condos.
Even in the early days, the project seemed doomed, with one of Trump’s partners defaulting on debts soon after the tower opened and later filing for bankruptcy.
Trump opened his first international hotel venture in 2011 in Panama City with the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (AFP/Getty)
Subsequent investigations from news outlets alleged that one of the main brokers who sold units in the tower, Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, met repeatedly with Ivanka Trump while working on the project and did business with organized crime figures who may have used the properties for money-laundering, earning the tower the nickname “Narco-a-Lago,” a play on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
“The Trump Organization was not the owner, developer or seller of the Trump Ocean Club Panama project,” the Trump Organization said after the money-laundering allegations. “Because of its limited role, the company was not responsible for the financing of the project and had no involvement in the sale of units or the retention of any real estate brokers.”
The company told Reuters it “never had any contractual relationship or significant dealings” with Nogueira.
Trump later fought for control of the Panama City tower with a developer who bought out the majority of units (Wikipedia)
Nogueira fled Panama on bail while awaiting trial on unrelated fraud charges, and spoke to reporters as a fugitive in disguise in Europe.
At one point, as Ocean Club condo owners objected to the Trump team’s management practices and sought to fire the company, accusing them of overspending and taking excessive bonuses. Trump responded by suing, demanding $75m for wrongful termination.
A key broker on the Trump Panama project may have sold units to organized crime figures who used properties as vehicles for money-laundering (Getty)
The litigation was settled in 2016 – the same year Trump was elected president – but the drama around the tower didn’t end there.
“President Trump removed himself from his multi-billion-dollar real estate empire to run for office and forewent his government salary, becoming the first President to actually lose net worth while serving in the White House,” Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump-Vance transition team, told The Independent in a statement. “Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn’t get into politics for profit – he’s fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again.”
In 2017, businessman Orestes Fintiklis bought hundreds of units inside the hotel-condo portion of the building for between $20m and $25m from one of the tower’s bankrupt developers, making him the controlling owner. He helped lead owners of units in the building in calls to sever their relationship with the Trump companies managing the development.
The Trump Organization accused Fintiklis of violating the terms of his original acquisition deals for the units, saying he agreed not to interfere in the Trump team’s management of the hotel.
By the following year, as Fintiklis sought to assume what he argued was majority ownership of the tower, shoving matches broke out between his employees and remaining Trump Organization staff. In one incident, the Trump team allegedly barred the new owners from entering a room with computer servers and CCTV monitors, prompting the owners group to allegedly shut off power to the room.
Fintiklis accused the Trump companies of shredding documents and hastily building walls to lock the new owners out of certain areas, while the Trump Organization accused the Fintiklis group of “thug-like, mob-style tactics.”
In a 2018 suit filed in New York federal court and amended multiple times since, Fintiklis and his company Ithaca Capital Partners accused Trump companies managing the Panama tower of “intentionally evading taxes” related to their role overseeing the development, allegedly saddling the new owners with millions in liability when an alleged 2018 audit uncovered the shortfall, the suit claimed.
Later filings accused the Trump managers of understating employee salaries to reduce potential social security tax payments and painting the building’s finances in a “false light” before Fintiklis was bought in, which the company denied and called “completely false.”
“To the extent any taxes were to be withheld,” the Trump Organization told The New York Times in 2019, they were the responsibility of the new owners, the company said. The Trump Organization added it “did not evade any taxes.”
A tower built on dirty money: Trump’s sail-shaped tower in Panama laundered countless millions until it went belly up after being caught up in the finances of kleptocracy.
When the sail-shaped Trump Ocean Club first took its place in Panama City’s skyline, the building(later renamed the Trump International Hotel and Tower Panama and, still later, renamed again the JW Marriott Panama) was presented as the last word in international luxury. But by the time it opened in 2011 as the Trump Organization’s first overseas hotel, the cognoscenti realized it had become something entirely different. Instead of functioning as a glamorous oasis for the rich and powerful, it had become a high-speed laundromat that washed enormous amounts of tainted capital. At the heart of the operation was a sales team that expertly courted wealthy foreigners—many of whom were Russian or Soviet émigrés—and leveraged the Trump brand to command inflated prices and launder money.
Like most of the projects he started after his crippling bankruptcies in Atlantic City, the Panama tower was not built by or financed by Donald Trump. After all, most banks wouldn’t touch him. Moreover, Trump had become party to a scheme by which he licensed his name and provided management services so that he could shift all the risk that went along with financing and development to local partners while he benefitted from a lucrative payday. Better yet, the arrangement continued to generate millions in management fees and royalties for Trump that amounted to nearly $14 million, even though the project itself faltered and buyers were left exposed
WHO HE? Both the Trump Organization and the Trump Family denied knowing Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, the chief broker for the Trump Ocean Club. Nogueira is pictured at left with Ivanka Trump and at right with Donald Trump
Trump fostered similar relationships all over the world. In 2003, Trump had whetted Latin American interest in the Trump brand by staging the Miss Universe pageant in Panama City, Panama. Three years later, he struck a deal in Panama to develop the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, a sail-shaped seventy-story waterfront complex that included residential apartments and a casino. According to an investigation by Global Witness, an anticorruption watchdog, Trump was entitled to a licensing fee, 1 percent of any financing he secured, and a cut of every unit sold—all of which would add up to more than $75 million. Many of the problems behind the project led to a man named Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, the tower’s primary broker. According to a report by Reuters, Nogueira, who, with his partners, sold more than half the apartments in the project, marketed the condos largely to Russians because, a colleague said, “Russians like to show off. For them, Trump was the Bentley” of real estate brands.
According to conversations secretly recorded by a former business partner, in 2013 Ventura Nogueira said he had laundered tens of millions of dollars through real estate. “More important than the money from real estate was being able to launder the drug money—there were much larger amounts involved,” he said in the recording. “When I was in Panama I was regularly laundering money for more than a dozen companies.”
Nogueira told Reuters that he became the leading broker for the project thanks in part to the support of Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who appeared in a promotional video with him. The Trump Organization went into overdrive with the new model. Why not? Since Trump did none of the financing and almost none of the development, its risks were minimal and the upside was high. The Trump Organization’s role in the Panama project “was at all times limited to licensing its brand and providing management services,” said Alan Garten, the company’s chief legal officer. “As the company was not the owner or developer, it had no involvement in the sale of any units at the property . . . No one at the Trump Organization, including the Trump family, has any recollection of ever meeting or speaking with this individual [Nogueira].”
![To: jeevacation@gmail com[eevacation@gmail com]
From: Peter Mandelson
Sem: Sun 11/7/2010 2 34 57 PM
Subyect: Fwd Rio apartment
Seat to mys bank manager Gratetul tor helpful thoughts trom my chief lite adviser
Sent from ims iPad
Bevin torwarded messave
From: Peter Mander iS
Date: 7 November 2010 [4 29 12 GMI
Subject: Rio apartment
P| ag awe dpeecussed Pan consdernne a purchase of an apartmentin Rion Ttisain](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-31-at-21.27.15.png)
![To: jeevacationg@gmail comieevacation@gmail com]
From: Peter Mandelson
Sen: Sun 11/7/2010 2 34 57 PM
Subject: Fwd Rio apartment
Sent to my bank manager Gratetul for helpful thoughts from my chiet ite adviser
Sent from ms 1Pad
Beuin tonvarded message
From: Peter Mandelson Po :
Date: 7 November 2010 14 29 12 GMI
Subject: Rio apartment
as we discussed, | am considering a purchase of an apartment in Rio It isin
a block under construction in [panema [tis being re-sold off plan bs the onginal
purchaser Asking price ts § 350 000 nals | am told that this value will rise on
construction and will follow Rio property prices up in coming sears
Tcan forward property details to vou m nest few dass but | would be grateful for advice
trom sou on how HSBCPB in Rio can assist in helping me take the decision on
this particular property and ina purchase [also need some advice on tas
mplications in Brazil and UK
Lam minded to place ownership, once secured. in Reinaldo’s name and advice on this
would also be welcome
Please let me know whether and how sou can help on this
Best regards from Beying
Peter
Sent from my iPad](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/upload_73f957b3-5d51-4d36-9449-a9bef95c2947.jpg)
![To: jeevacation@@gmail com[jeevacationgggmail.com]
From: PETER MANDELSON
Sent: Wed 12/1/2010 10:07:26 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Rio apartment
I cannot tell you how nervous this makes me. Going to bed now
On 24 Nov 2010, at 16:34, EE wrote:
Peter,
| am pleased to confirm that | now have approval to provide you with a loan on the following headiine
terms:-
Borrower You
Amount £1.68m
Purpose Assistance with purchase of holiday home in Rio
Term 5 years
Repayment £24,000 per quarter
Security Mortgage over 4 Park Village West
Valuaton The property wall be valued by one of the bank's panel valuers, at your cost.
We require a minirnum valuation of £2.4m
Interest 2.25% over 3m LIBOR - 1. approx. 3% p.a. at the present time. This 16 a
discount to our revised standard pricing of 2.5% margin, and unfortunately | am unable to reduce tt
further
Fee 0.75% (£12,600)
Other For the duration of the facilty, it1s a conditon that you maintain a maumum credit
balance with us of £100.000
Please advise iffhow you wish to proceed. As you may recall, from the end of this week | will be on
holiday untd 13th December, but Sam will be able to take matters forward in my absence.
Regards
HSBC Private Bank
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR | Media & Entertainment
HSBC Private Bank (UK) Limited, 78 St. James's Street, London. SW1A 1JB](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/upload_f224aa92-4eca-4653-bdd8-1e8a40477fab.jpg)
![To: jeevacation@gmail.comfjeevacation@gmail.com]: Jeffrey Epsteinfjjeevacation€@gmail.com}
From: Peter Mandelson
Sent: Wed 3/30/2011 3:41:59 PM
Subject: on
A lawyer in Rio has pointed out two problems in Reinaldo purchasing the Rio flat by means of a
cash transfer from me: we would be liable to taxes in both UK and Brazil, and the purchase itself
would be liable for two forms of property taxation in Brazil, 4° and 6°o respectively of the full
purchase price. This would be prohibitively expensive.
The lawyer suggests the following scheme which he has operated for others. He would
buy‘create an offshore company in Panama and this company would open an account with
HSBCPB in London. We would also create a Brazilian company which would have the
Panamanian company as a partner (shares held by Reinaldo and me). The Brazilian company,
managed by Reinaldo, would purchase the flat. The flat purchase would be financed by means of a
loan from the Panamanian company's account in London to justify the offshore (non-taxable)
ongin of the moncy.
The lawyer proposes that | invest US$S0,000 to buy the shares of the Brazilian company (making
a residence permit in Brazil also possible).
The company would be liable for tax at 20 on the property purchase (rather than 4% and 6°o).
The company would have a Brazilian bank account (Safra or HSBC 7). The lawyer would have
power of attorncy to sign legal documents etc.
As directors of the Brazilian company, Reinaldo and | would have joint control over the property.](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/image-4.png)
borderslynn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.