diff --git a/nest-cli.json b/nest-cli.json index 0a71daa..41b703c 100644 --- a/nest-cli.json +++ b/nest-cli.json @@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ "include": "../config/*.*", "outDir": "dist/config", "watchAssets": true + }, + { + "include": "**/*.json", + "outDir": "dist/src", + "watchAssets": true } ] } diff --git a/src/services/negative-news/negative-news.impl.ts b/src/services/negative-news/negative-news.impl.ts index dcefd9f..02c1b90 100644 --- a/src/services/negative-news/negative-news.impl.ts +++ b/src/services/negative-news/negative-news.impl.ts @@ -45,332 +45,6 @@ const topicRiskScoreConfig = { "illegal activities": 4 }; -/* - params_classify = GenerateParams(decoding_method="greedy") - #params = GenerateParams( - #decoding_method="sample", - #max_new_tokens=10, - #min_new_tokens=1, - #stream=False, - #temperature=0.7, - #top_k=50, - #top_p=1, - #) - - #genai_model = Model(model="google/flan-ul2", params=params, credentials=creds) - langchain_model_classify = LangChainInterface(model="google/flan-ul2", params=params_classify, credentials=creds) - - params_summary = GenerateParams(decoding_method="greedy", repetition_penalty=2, min_new_tokens=80, max_new_tokens=200) - langchain_model_summary = LangChainInterface(model="google/flan-ul2", params=params_summary, credentials=creds) - - */ - -/* - data = search_func(query, num_results,api_key) - valid_url_details, bad_url_details = validate_urls(data) - report_bad_urls(bad_url_details) - scraped_news = scrape_func(valid_url_details, char_size) - neg_news, pos_news = check_neg_news(scraped_news,langchain_model_classify) - report_pos_news(pos_news,langchain_model_summary) - tp,fp = apply_filters(neg_news,langchain_model_classify,subject_name) - report_fp(fp,langchain_model_summary) - report_tp(tp,langchain_model_summary) - final_conclusion(tp,fp, pos_news, subject_name, num_results) - st.success("Done!") - - */ - -/* -def search_func(query,num_results,api_key): - client = ScrapeitCloudClient(api_key) - - try: - params = { - "q": query, - "gl": "us", - "hl": "en", - #"domain": "google.co.uk", - "num": num_results, - "tbm": "nws", - #"tbs": "qdr:y" - } - - response = client.scrape(params) - - data = response.json() - data = data['newsResults'] - write_list("data.json", data) - r_data = read_list("data.json") - #r_data = read_list("data_UT.json") - return r_data - - except Exception as e: - print(f"Error occurred: {e}") - -def validate_urls(data): - valid_url_details = [] - bad_url_details = [] - - for x in range(len(data)): - title = data[x]['title'] - URL = data[x]['link'] - snippet = data[x]['snippet'] - publish_date = data[x]['date'] - n=0 - - try: - response = requests.get(URL,timeout = (10, 10)) - n=1 - except requests.exceptions.Timeout: - n=2 - except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e: - #print("An error occurred:", e) - n=3 - - if n == 1: - valid_news_ll = [title, URL, snippet, publish_date] - valid_url_details.append(valid_news_ll) - elif n == 2: - invalid_news_ll = [title, URL, snippet, publish_date,'TimeOut'] - bad_url_details.append(invalid_news_ll) - elif n == 3: - invalid_news_ll = [title, URL, snippet, publish_date,'OtherError'] - bad_url_details.append(invalid_news_ll) - else: - pass - - return valid_url_details, bad_url_details - -def report_bad_urls(bad_url_details): - write_list("bad_url.json", bad_url_details) - -def scrape_func(valid_url_details, char_size): - scraped_news = [] - r_bad_url = read_list("bad_url.json") - for x in range(len(valid_url_details)): - title = valid_url_details[x] [0] - URL = valid_url_details[x][1] - snippet = valid_url_details[x][2] - publish_date = valid_url_details[x][3] - url=[URL] - loader = UnstructuredURLLoader(urls=url) - sdata=loader.load() - sdata = sdata[0].page_content - if sdata == "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker": - bad_url_ll=[title,URL,snippet, publish_date,"Blocking WebSites"] - r_bad_url.append(bad_url_ll) - else: - scraped_news_ll=[title,URL,snippet,publish_date,sdata[0:char_size]] - scraped_news.append(scraped_news_ll) - - write_list("scraped_news.json", scraped_news) - write_list("bad_url.json", r_bad_url) - return scraped_news - -def check_neg_news(scraped_news,langchain_model): - neg_news = [] - pos_news = [] - r_topic_config = read_list("topic_risk_score_config.json") - topic_ll = list(r_topic_config.keys()) - topic_prompt = ", ".join(topic_ll) - #print(topic_prompt) - - for x in range(len(scraped_news)): - context = scraped_news[x][4] - langchain_model = langchain_model - neg_news_instr = f"From the context provided identify if there is any negetive news or news related to {topic_prompt} etc present or not. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no" - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(neg_news_instr+" : {{context}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - #pattern = PromptPattern.langchain.from_template(template) - #print("") - #print("") - #print("") - response = langchain_model(template.format(context=context)) - if response == 'yes': - news_topic = [] - for i in range(len(topic_ll)): - indv_topic_prompt = topic_ll[i] - #topic_instr1 = f"From the context provided about news item can you suggest which of the following topics is this news related to ? {topic_prompt}" - topic_instr1 = f"From the context provided about news item can you suggest this news related to {indv_topic_prompt} or not. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no" - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(topic_instr1+" : {{context}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response = langchain_model(template.format(context=context)) - if response == 'yes': - response = indv_topic_prompt - #print(response) - news_topic.append(response) - scraped_news[x].append(news_topic) - neg_news.append(scraped_news[x]) - elif response == 'no': - pos_news.append(scraped_news[x]) - return neg_news, pos_news - -def report_pos_news(pos_news,langchain_model): - pos_news_results = [] - langchain_model = langchain_model - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str("Summarize the text in 2 or 3 sentences : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - #pattern = PromptPattern.langchain.from_template(template) - for x in range(len(pos_news)) : - text = pos_news[x][4] - response = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - summary = response.rstrip(".") - pos_news_results_ll = [pos_news[x][1],pos_news[x][3],summary] - pos_news_results.append(pos_news_results_ll) - - write_list("pos_news_results.json", pos_news_results) - -def apply_filters(neg_news,langchain_model, subject_name): - tp = [] - fp = [] - r_filter = read_list("filter.json") - langchain_model = langchain_model - - for x in range(len(neg_news)): - if len(r_filter) == 0: - subject_name = subject_name - instr1 = f"From the news text provided identify if the person {subject_name} is mentioned anywhere in the text. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no. If not sure then say not sure" - text = neg_news[x][4] - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(instr1+" : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response1 = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - response2 = 'yes' - response3 = 'yes' - response4 = 'yes' - - if (response1 == "yes"): - neg_news[x].extend([response1,response2,response3,response4]) - tp.append(neg_news[x]) - else: - neg_news[x].extend([response1,response2,response3,response4]) - fp.append(neg_news[x]) - else: - location = r_filter[0] - subject_name = subject_name - - dob = r_filter[1] - dob_date = datetime.strptime(dob, '%b %Y') - #print(dob_date) - - today = date.today() - age = today - dob_date.date() - age_yrs = round((age.days+age.seconds/86400)/365.2425) - #print(age_yrs) - - instr1 = f"From the news text provided identify if the person {subject_name} is mentioned anywhere in the text. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no. If not sure then say not sure" - instr2 = f"From the news text provided identify if there is any mention of {location} anywhere in the text. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no. If not sure then say not sure" - instr3 = f"From the news text provided identify if there is any mention of {dob_date} anywhere in the text. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no. If not sure then say not sure" - instr4 = f"From the news text provided identify if the age of {subject_name} is nearly around {age_yrs} years or so. Provide a truthful answer in yes or no. If not sure then say not sure" - - text = neg_news[x][4] - - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(instr1+" : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response1 = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(instr2+" : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response2 = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(instr3+" : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response3 = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str(instr4+" : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - response4 = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - - if (response1 == "yes") and (response2 == "yes") and ((response3 == "yes") or (response4 == "yes")): - vmatch = 1 - neg_news[x].extend([response1,response2,response3,response4]) - tp.append(neg_news[x]) - else: - vmmatch = 0 - neg_news[x].extend([response1,response2,response3,response4]) - fp.append(neg_news[x]) - return tp, fp - -def report_fp(fp,langchain_model): - fp_results=[] - langchain_model = langchain_model - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str("Summarize the text in 2 or 3 sentences : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - #pattern = PromptPattern.langchain.from_template(template) - for x in range(len(fp)) : - text = fp[x][4] - response = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - summary = response.rstrip(".") - fp_results_ll = [fp[x][1],fp[x][3],summary,fp[x][5],fp[x][6],fp[x][7],fp[x][8],fp[x][9]] - fp_results.append(fp_results_ll) - - write_list("fp_results.json", fp_results) - -def report_tp(tp,langchain_model): - tp_results=[] - langchain_model = langchain_model - seed_pattern = PromptPattern.from_str("Summarize the text in 2 or 3 sentences : {{text}}") - template = seed_pattern.langchain.as_template() - #pattern = PromptPattern.langchain.from_template(template) - for x in range(len(tp)) : - text = tp[x][4] - response = langchain_model(template.format(text=text)) - summary = response.rstrip(".") - tp_results_ll = [tp[x][1],tp[x][3],summary,tp[x][5],tp[x][6],tp[x][7],tp[x][8],tp[x][9]] - tp_results.append(tp_results_ll) - - write_list("tp_results.json", tp_results) - -def final_conclusion(tp,fp, pos_news,subject_name, num_results): - neg_news_conclusion = [] - cpos = len(pos_news) - ctp = len(tp) - cfp = len(fp) - bad_url_details = read_list("bad_url.json") - cbadurl = len(bad_url_details) - - conclusion_text_general = "Total News Screened: "+str(num_results)+" Neg-News-"+str(ctp)+" Un-related News-"+str(cfp)+" Non-Neg News-"+str(cpos)+" Bad-Url-"+str(cbadurl)+" " - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text_general) - - tp_topic_unique = [] - for x in range(len(tp)) : - tp_topic_unique.extend(tp[x][5]) - - fp_topic_unique = [] - for x in range(len(fp)) : - fp_topic_unique.extend(fp[x][5]) - - l1 = list(set(tp_topic_unique)) - l2 = list(set(fp_topic_unique)) - l1str = ", ".join(l1) - l2str = ", ".join(l2) - - if len(l1) > 0: - conclusion_text_topic_tp = "Screening process has found "+ str(ctp) + " Negative news. Topics identified are - "+l1str +". " - else: - conclusion_text_topic_tp = "" - - if len(l2) > 0: - conclusion_text_topic_fp = "Screening process has found "+ str(cfp) + " unrelated -ve news. Topics identified are - "+l2str +"." - else: - conclusion_text_topic_fp = "" - - conclusion_text_topic = conclusion_text_topic_tp + conclusion_text_topic_fp - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text_topic_tp) - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text_topic_fp) - - if len(tp) > 0: - conclusion_text = "The screening process has found that there are Negative News present about "+subject_name +". Initiate L2 level Screening." - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text) - elif len(fp) > 0: - conclusion_text = "Even if the screening process has found that there are Negative News present but those seems not related to "+subject_name +". Further Manual Screening is recommended." - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text) - else: - conclusion_text = "There are No Negative News found about "+subject_name +"." - neg_news_conclusion.append(conclusion_text) - write_list("neg_news_conclusion.json", neg_news_conclusion) - - */ - interface ScrapeitResponse { searchInformation: { totalResults: string; diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_bank_alfalah.json b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_bank_alfalah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d46cba7 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_bank_alfalah.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +[ + [ + "", + "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/at-least-six-pakistani-banks-named-in-global-money-laundering-list/articleshow/78252908.cms?from=mdr", + "", + "Sep 24, 2020", + "At least six Pakistani banks named in global money laundering probe\n\n Synopsis\n\nThe International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Buzzfeed News carried out an investigation and found that at least 29 suspicious transactions worth about $2.5 million related to Pakistani banks, that may have been used for money laundering.\n\nISLAMABAD: At least six Pakistani banks have been named in an investigation on the role global banks play in money laundering, which make up to at least $2.5 million.\n\nThe International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Buzzfeed News carried out an investigation and found that at least 29 suspicious transactions worth about $2.5 million related to Pakistani banks, that may have been used for money laundering.\n\nAs per the investigation, all of 29 suspicious transactions were done during the year 2011 and 2012. \n\nThe investigation details by Buzzfeed News, shared with the ICIJ revealed that global banks to the US Treasury Department's Intelligence Unit, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network known as FinCEN, filed over 2,100 suspicious activity reports. \n\nThe report revealed that global banks moved more than $2 trillion between 1999 and 2017 in suspicious payments, flagging clients in more than 170 countries, identified as being involved in illicit transaction. \n\nAs per revealed data on Pakistani banks, out of the 29 suspicious transactions to and from Pakistan, received transactions amounted to $1,942,560 while the sent transactions were $452,000, which include at least 12 suspicious transactions by Allied Bank, eight flagged transactions by United Bank Limited, three by Bank Alfalah, four transactions by Standard Chartered Bank and one by Habib Bank Limited. \n\nThe report has put another dent on global image of Pakistan's crippling economy and its position on money laundering. \n\nIt comes at a time when Pakistan is working hard towards fulfilling the 27-point-action plan of the global watchdog on terror financing and money laundering, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). \n\nPakistan currently is in the grey list of the FATF and is working on compliance of the action plan to ensure that it saves itself from being pushed ahead into the black list, which would attract global financial sanctions. \n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=1007106", + "", + "Oct 6, 2022", + "Pakistani banks routinely indicted for money laundering and terror financing\n\n Thu, Oct 06 2022 01:16:33 PM\n\n By Rahul Kumar\n\n New Delhi, Oct 6: Recently Habib Bank Limited (HBL), Pakistan's largest private sector bank with international branches, faced allegations of helping global terror organisation Al-Qaeda, leading to deaths and injuries to hundreds of people in Afghanistan.\n\n Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that a US court said terror financing by Habib Bank led to attacks that killed and injured 370 people in Afghanistan during 2021 and 2019. Also, nearly 370 individual complainants are demanding compensation from the bank. The bank is contesting these charges in the US court refuting the allegations as 'meritless'.\n\n This is, however, not the first time that Pakistani banks, or even the Habib Bank, are facing allegations and investigations of a serious nature.\n\nIndia Narrative spoke with geopolitical analyst Mark Kinra who says: It is not the first time that HBL has been accused of terror-related activities in the US. In 2007, Habib Bank was sued by the widow of journalist Daniel Pearl for financially helping Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In 2017, it had to shut down its only US branch and was penalised $225 million for illicit money transfers.\n\n Kinra says that not just Habib Bank, but several other Pakistani banks have faced scrutiny over the years.\n\n Earlier this year the National Bank of Pakistan paid $55 million in fines for non-compliance and money laundering in New York. News agency Reuters reported: The Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced on Thursday that the NBP's New York branch would be fined up to $55.4 million for non-compliance and anti-money laundering violations.\n\n Kinra says: In 2020, six Pakistani banks were found to be involved in 29 suspicious transactions amounting to $2.5 million between 2011 and 2012. These banks included Allied Bank, United Bank (UBL), Habib Metropolitan Bank, Bank Alfalah, Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan, and Habib Bank (HBL).\n\n The indictment of Habib Bank is important because of the New York district court's remarks. The complaints allege that the defendant took deliberate steps to help customers evade international sanctions regimes, and in doing so incurred business risk that ultimately led to the defendant's expulsion from the US. Those allegations are sufficient …, the court said. \n\n As Pakistan's largest bank, HBL is also active in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Interbank Consortium (SCO-IBC) for over a decade. At the recently held SCO Heads of State meet in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, HBL was present as Pakistan's only bank with focus on regional trade and investment.\n\n HBL became the first Pakistani bank to open a branch in China, also becoming one of the few foreign banks to operate from the communist country. It has been spearheading the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project by providing banking and financial services.\n\n Since the establishment of CPEC in 2013, HBL has formed a dedicated China coverage team comprised of Chinese and Pakistani bankers in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad to provide financial services exclusively to Chinese firms. The bank opened a branch in the Gwadar Free Zone in 2016 for Chinese investors and people who were developing factories there, says website Global Village Space.\n\n The bank's woes came to limelight just a month after a team of the France-based watchdog, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), travelled to Pakistan on a three-day visit to check if Pakistan had made progress in closing down financing of terror activities and curbing international terror groups.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/alfalah-bank", + "", + "Sep 24, 2020", + "At least six Pakistani banks named in global money laundering probe\n\n Synopsis\n\nThe International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Buzzfeed News carried out an investigation and found that at least 29 suspicious transactions worth about $2.5 million related to Pakistani banks, that may have been used for money laundering.\n\nISLAMABAD: At least six Pakistani banks have been named in an investigation on the role global banks play in money laundering, which make up to at least $2.5 million.\n\nThe International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Buzzfeed News carried out an investigation and found that at least 29 suspicious transactions worth about $2.5 million related to Pakistani banks, that may have been used for money laundering.\n\nAs per the investigation, all of 29 suspicious transactions were done during the year 2011 and 2012. \n\nThe investigation details by Buzzfeed News, shared with the ICIJ revealed that global banks to the US Treasury Department's Intelligence Unit, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network known as FinCEN, filed over 2,100 suspicious activity reports. \n\nThe report revealed that global banks moved more than $2 trillion between 1999 and 2017 in suspicious payments, flagging clients in more than 170 countries, identified as being involved in illicit transaction. \n\nAs per revealed data on Pakistani banks, out of the 29 suspicious transactions to and from Pakistan, received transactions amounted to $1,942,560 while the sent transactions were $452,000, which include at least 12 suspicious transactions by Allied Bank, eight flagged transactions by United Bank Limited, three by Bank Alfalah, four transactions by Standard Chartered Bank and one by Habib Bank Limited. \n\nThe report has put another dent on global image of Pakistan's crippling economy and its position on money laundering. \n\nIt comes at a time when Pakistan is working hard towards fulfilling the 27-point-action plan of the global watchdog on terror financing and money laundering, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). \n\nPakistan currently is in the grey list of the FATF and is working on compliance of the action plan to ensure that it saves itself from being pushed ahead into the black list, which would attract global financial sanctions. \n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/ikram-ul-majeed-sehgal", + "", + "May 19, 2022", + "Ikram Sehgal \n\nChairman, Pathfinder Group \n\n and \n\n Chairman, Karachi Council on Foreign Relations (KCFR)\n\n PATHFINDER GROUP has about 12000 employees in over 50 cities/towns in Pakistan. Pathfinder Group includes in its Security Services Division: Security & Management Services (Pvt) Ltd (SMS), Wackenhut Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (WPPL), the other companies in its Security Services Division are SMS Electronic Safety Services (Pvt) Ltd (SMS ESS), Research & Collection Services (Pvt) Ltd (RCS), and Facility Specialist & Multi Services (Pvt) Ltd (FSMS).The Financial Services and Technology Division includes: Virtual Remittance Gateway (Pvt) Ltd (VRG), i3 Pathfinder (Pvt) Ltd and iPath (Pvt) Ltd. \n\n Graduate, Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul; served in Pakistan Army (Infantry and Army Aviation). First Pakistani PW in history to escape from India (in July 1971). Battlefield promotion to rank of Major commanding a rifle company on 13 Dec 71. Commercial Pilots Licence (CPL) with over 2000 hours in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.\n\n Director EastWest Institute (EWI) USA (Director of the Year 2016), Sehgal is the Publisher & Chief Editor of Defence Journal (DJ), writing weekly columns for various magazines and newspapers. Former Director Bank Alfalah Ltd (16 years) and Chairman K-Electric (KE) and Foundation Member, World Economic Forum (WEF), Switzerland, Formerly Member WEF Global Agenda Council (GAC) for Counter-Terrorism and now Anti-Corruption and Transparency” and Member WEF Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI). Former Member Business Advisory Board (BAB), International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva, Sehgal is Co-Chairman of the ‘Pakistan Committee’ of the Swiss-Asian Chamber of Commerce (SACC), Geneva. Former Chairman All Pakistan Security Agencies Association (APSAA). Senior Adviser, Director and Member Advisory Committee on CPEC Projects of the National Institute of Strategic Communication (NISC), Peking University, China. Regular Speaker at Defence Services Institutions (like National Defence University (NDU), etc) and International Think Tanks, Sehgal is Vice President and Member Executive Committee, Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE). He is Chairman, Karachi Council on Foreign Relations (KCFR), Karachi and Member Board of Governors (BOG), Lawrence College, Ghora Gali (GG)." + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PK/XKAR/BAFL/company-people", + "", + "Dec 31, 2022", + "Company Info Bank Alfalah Ltd\n\nDescription Bank Alfalah Ltd\n\nBank Alfalah Ltd. operates as a holding company. The firm engages in the provision of commercial banking and related services. It operates through the following segments: Retail Banking, Corporate Banking, Treasury, Digital Banking, Islamic Banking, International Operations, Brokerage, and Others. The Retail banking segment includes loans, deposits, trading activity, wealth management and other banking transactions. The Corporate Banking segment comprises loans, deposits, project financing, trade financing, investment banking and other banking activities with bank's corporate and public sector customers. The Treasury segment consists of liquidity management activities carried out through borrowing, lending, money market, capital market and merchant banking operations. The Digital Banking segment composes branchless banking accounts, deposits and lending products, digital channels, corporate, G2P and SMME portfolio, digital payments and digital products. The Islamic Banking segment pertains to full scale Islamic Banking operations of the bank. The International Operations segment encompasses amounts related to bank's overseas operations, namely, commercial banking activities in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates and wholesale banking activities in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The Brokerage segment handles asset management activities mainly through the subsidiary Alfalah CLSA Securities Limited. The Others segment covers the head office related activities. The company was founded on June 21, 1992 and is headquartered in Karachi, Pakistan. \n\nKey People Bank Alfalah Ltd\n\nAverage Growth Rates Bank Alfalah Ltd\n\nInsider Trading Bank Alfalah Ltd.\n\nOwnership Bank Alfalah Ltd" + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_james_alexander.json b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_james_alexander.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..06c1950 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_james_alexander.json @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +[ + [ + "", + "https://www.hughjames.com/blog/hj-talks-about-abuse-abuse-by-overseas-teacher-james-alexander/#:~:text=He%20was%20convicted%20of%20plotting,to%20five%20years%20in%20jail", + "", + "May 21, 2021", + "HJ Talks About Abuse: Abuse by Overseas Teacher James Alexander. Over the last few months, we have discussed abuse in education by teachers. Within such profession, we expect a high standard from those looking after children to have sufficient background checks and be of suitable character. We now turn to discuss abuse overseas following the conviction of British Music National teacher, James Alexander. Alexander was a former British employed teacher who had worked at Bromsgrove International School in Bangkok. During his time overseas, he tried to orchestrate the abuse of young girls in the Philippines. Alexander had been subject to an investigation where it was found he had sent 15 money transactions to unidentified facilitators known for live-streaming child abuse from Iligan City in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Evidence was accumulated against Alexander that he was carrying out offences between 2017-2020. His devices were seized on arrival in the UK which showed he had asked the facilitators to send him images of girls under 13 posing indecently. Investigators also said they found numerous illicit photos of minors on Alexander’s phone along with messages in which he described how would like to abuse children as young as 4. The investigation noted, Alexander tried to arrange travel to the Philippines to abuse children in person, but there are no records of him ever traveling there. The UK National Crime Agency’s senior investigating officer, Hazel Stewart stated “Alexander clearly tried to manipulate and exploit the poverty of the vulnerable in order to gratify his sick sexual desires. He believed he could abuse Filipino children safely from his home and wanted to visit the Philippines to carry out the sexual abuse himself.” Several children placed under protective care. He was convicted of plotting to abuse children in the Philippines by the Leeds Crown Court, and was banned from all foreign travel and placed on a permanent sex offender list after trying to arrange to abuse children in the Philippines. Alexander was sentenced to five years in jail. Sexual abuse against children conducted in different countries continues to be on the increase with ever evolving technology. This is not the first time we see such shocking headlines. BBC investigations presented by Stacey Dooley documented “Mums Selling Their Kids for Sex” in the Philippines where Filipino mothers sexually abuse their own children, live in front of webcams in exchange for money. ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), conducted a secret operation in the hope of arresting several mothers who were selling their own children for sex. The investigation found the disturbing reality was many of the abusers were coming from the US and the UK. Abusers can still face criminal sanctions in the UK even if the offences are committed abroad. Hugh James acted for the claimants in the successful High Court action brought against Derek Slade who had sexually abused boys in the Philippines. Slade was found by the judge to have sexually abused five boys and ordered him to pay them compensation." + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/five-years-in-jail-and-worldwide-travel-ban-for-british-teacher-who-wanted-to-abuse-young-filipino-children", + "", + "Jan 9, 2021", + "Five years in jail and worldwide travel ban for British teacher who wanted to abuse young Filipino children. A music teacher has been jailed for five years.A music teacher has been jailed for five years for plotting to sexually abuse young girls in the Philippines. James Alexander, 42, was caught by the National Crime Agency after he sent money to known facilitators who had live-streamed child sexual abuse from Illigan City. He was arrested on 30 June 2018 at Manchester Airport as he flew into the UK from Thailand where he lived since 2017. NCA investigators seized his electronic devices. Forensic analysis showed Alexander, of Beeston, Leeds, sent at least 15 money transfers to abuse facilitators between August 2017 and Jun 2018. It also showed that Alexander - who served as a reservist in the Parachute Regiment from 1999 to 2003 – tried to arrange with abuse facilitators over Skype and WhatsApp to travel to the Philippines to abuse little girls himself. Alexander had a discussion with one female facilitator about a 13 year-old girl, in which he said: If I meet anyone else I would like younger. He then asked the facilitator for pictures of her 12-year-old daughter. It is believed indecent images of the 12-year-old were sent to him, as his recovered chat history shows he said: nice baby…now take the other pictures I asked.” On 1 February 2018 he and the woman discussed plans for him to meet the girls in a hotel and he asked: Are you going to bring them both with you and stay also”. He added: You’ll show them what to do.” The woman told Alexander she had other daughters aged nine, six and four. Alexander, who taught in Leeds and Malaysia before moving to Thailand, asked for sick images of the girls aged nine and six posing in a certain way, and asked what the six-year-old would do with him. He also explained how he would like to sexually abuse the four-year-old. Alexander told another Filipino mother – who says she will make her daughters do anything for money – that he wants to have sex with her seven and 11-year-old girls. He directed them to pose for photographs. NCA officers also discovered other WhatsApp messages where Alexander asked a 10-year-old to send him images of her posing, and asked if he could meet her. There were no records of Alexander ever travelling to the Philippines. In-country investigations into the facilitators continue but as a result of NCA intelligence, one suspect was arrested and several children safeguarded. Alexander taught at Bromsgrove International School in Bangkok, Thailand, which dismissed him upon notification of the investigation. Safeguarding checks were made at the school and there was no evidence of Alexander offending there. Alexander’s phone contained child abuse images. He admitted one count of arranging/facilitating the commission of a child sex offence; three counts of attempting to cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity, and one count of making an indecent image of a child. Alexander, who also performed as a DJ in Thailand, was prosecuted under section 72 of the Sex Offences Act 2003 which allows British nationals to be prosecuted in the UK for offences committed abroad. Today, at Leeds Crown Court, he was also given a five-year sexual harm prevention order which bans foreign travel, and he was made to sign the sex offenders register for life. Hazel Stewart, NCA senior investigating officer, said: Alexander clearly tried to manipulate and exploit the poverty of the vulnerable in order to gratify his sick sexual desires. He believed he could abuse Filipino children safely from his home and wanted to visit the Philippines to carry out the sexual abuse himself. The NCA has strong partnerships with law enforcement in the Philippines. We work together to combat this kind of offending. We and UK policing will never give up our pursuit of offenders who commit these horrendous crimes. Victims or anyone with information about child sexual abuse offences should contact their local police. Child Protection Charity The Lucy Faithfull Foundation runs the Stop It Now! helpline which offers confidential advice to anyone concerned about their own or someone else’s behaviour towards children." + ], + [ + "", + "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ut-supreme-court/1600364.html", + "", + "May 4, 2012", + "STATE v. ALEXANDER (2012) \n\nSupreme Court of Utah. \n\n STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. James Norman ALEXANDER, Defendant and Respondent. \n\nNo. 20090829. Decided: May 04, 2012 \n\nMark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Marian Decker, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for petitioner. Linda M. Jones, Michael R. Sikora, Salt Lake City, for respondent.\n\nINTRODUCTION \n\n 1 In this case, we consider the showing required for a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea under the current version of section 77–13–6 of the Utah Code (Plea Withdrawal Statute or Statute)2 and rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.2 In 2007, James Alexander pled guilty to burglary with intent to commit sexual battery. Prior to his sentencing, Mr. Alexander filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In that motion, he argued that when the district court accepted his guilty plea, it failed to apprise him of the elements of sexual battery, as required by rule 11. In addition, he alleged that he was never otherwise informed of the elements of sexual battery, and his plea was therefore not knowingly and voluntarily made. The district court denied Mr. Alexander's motion and sentenced him to a prison term of one to fifteen years.\n\n 3 On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not comply with rule 11(e)(4)(A) at the plea hearing because it did not inform Mr. Alexander of the elements of sexual battery, which was the specific intent crime underlying the burglary charge. The court of appeals assumed that the violation of rule 11 automatically rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary. Thus, it held that Mr. Alexander was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.\n\n 4 We granted certiorari to resolve three issues: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in its evaluation of the case in relation to the record and the standard for a knowing and voluntary plea,” (2) whether the court of appeals erred in declining to require a showing of prejudice before holding that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea,3 and (3) whether the court of appeals' decision in this case conflicts with our prior holding in Hurst v. Cook.4\n\n5 A majority of the court agrees on the following. First, three members of this court hold that, although the court of appeals erred in limiting its review to whether the district court had complied with rule 11 during the plea hearing, the record nonetheless demonstrates that Mr. Alexander's plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. Second, three members of this court hold that the court of appeals did not err in declining to require a showing of prejudice because such a showing is not required by rule 11(l ). Finally, the court unanimously holds that, because this case involves a different issue than the one addressed in our holding in Hurst, the two cases do not conflict. Based on these conclusions, we affirm the court of appeals' decision to allow Mr. Alexander to withdraw his guilty plea.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n 6 In 2007, Mr. Alexander was charged with rape, a first degree felony, and forcible sexual abuse, a second degree felony. At the preliminary hearing on these charges, the alleged victim testified that on January 29, 2006, Mr. Alexander phoned her and said he wanted to come to her house and have sex with her. She stated that she had told Mr. Alexander he could come to her home, but she would not have sex with him. When Mr. Alexander arrived, he began talking about sexual acts and she again stated that she did not want to have sex with him. Mr. Alexander nonetheless began to hug and kiss her. He grabbed her arms and breasts and touched her vagina. She testified that she pulled away from Mr. Alexander and told him to back off and get the hell off [her]. She stated that Mr. Alexander then pushed her down on the bed, climbed on top of her and forced her to have sexual intercourse without her consent. Although he did not testify at the preliminary hearing, Mr. Alexander denied the allegations and pled not guilty to the charges.\n\n 7 Sometime after the preliminary hearing, Mr. Alexander and the State entered into plea negotiations. Mr. Alexander subsequently agreed to plead guilty to an amended charge of burglary5 with the intent to commit sexual battery,6 a second degree felony. The amended charging documents described the burglary charge as follows:\n\n [O]n or about January 29, 2006, in violation of Title 76 Chapter 6, Section 202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, ․ the defendant, James N. Alexander, a party to the offense, entered or remained unlawfully in the dwelling of [the alleged victim] with the intent to commit a sexual battery.\n\n 8 At the same time that the State filed the amended charging documents, Mr. Alexander and his counsel signed a Statement of Defendant in Support of Guilty Plea (Plea Affidavit). In the Plea Affidavit, the elements of the burglary charge were identified as follows: The defendant (1) remained unlawfully (2) in a dwelling (3) with the intent to commit a felony, theft, assault, lewdness, or sexual battery. Neither the amended charging documents nor the Plea Affidavit described or listed the elements of sexual battery. As to the factual basis for the burglary charge, the Plea Affidavit stated, On 1/29/06 at [omitted address] in Salt Lake County, Utah, the defendant was in the apartment of [the alleged victim] and committed the offense of sexual battery on [her].\n\n 9 Before accepting the guilty plea, the district court held a hearing where it reviewed with Mr. Alexander the amended charging documents and the Plea Affidavit. Although the district court did not discuss the elements of sexual battery, the court did ask Mr. Alexander's counsel if he had explained what a second degree felony means and if he felt that Mr. Alexander was entering a knowing and voluntary plea. Mr. Alexander's counsel stated that he had reviewed the amended [charging documents] with [Mr. Alexander] as well as th [e] [Plea Affidavit] outlining all of those issues.He also articulated the factual basis for the plea as follows:\n\n [O]n January 29th [of] 2006 ․, Mr. Alexander was in the [home] of [the alleged victim], a friend of his․ [H]e was allowed into the [home], but while [there], he committed the offense of sexual battery on [her].\n\n The prosecutor then clarified that while Mr. Alexander was in the alleged victim's home, she start[ed] to do some actions that clearly t[old][him] that he need[ed] to be out of the apartment and instead of leaving, he remain[ed] with the intent as we've outlined. When the court asked Mr. Alexander if that factual basis was accurate, he responded, Yes, sir. The court then informed Mr. Alexander of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and the court accepted his guilty plea.\n\n 10 Prior to sentencing, Mr. Alexander filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In support of his motion, he alleged that the district court had failed to apprise him of the nature and elements of sexual battery, as it was required to do by rule 11(e)(4)(A) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.7 He also asserted that, because he was never informed of the nature and elements of sexual battery, which was the specific intent crime underlying the burglary charge, his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The court denied Mr. Alexander's motion and later sentenced him to a prison term of one to fifteen years.8\n\n 11 Mr. Alexander appealed the district court's denial of his motion to the Utah Court of Appeals. At the court of appeals, he argued that his plea was unknowing and involuntary because he did not understand the nature and elements of sexual battery.9 The court of appeals reviewed the Plea Affidavit and the plea hearing, and it determined that they contain[ed] no discussion of the elements of sexual battery.10 The court stated that because intent to commit sexual battery was the crux of the burglary charge against [Mr. Alexander], the trial court was required [by rule 11(e)(4)(A) ] to ensure that [he] understood the elements of sexual battery-and that he was pleading guilty to all of those elements-before accepting his guilty plea.11 The court of appeals assumed that because the district court had failed to comply with rule 11 when accepting Mr. Alexander's guilty plea, the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.12 Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision and held that Mr. Alexander could withdraw his guilty plea.13\n\n 12 After the court of appeals issued its opinion, the State filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted. The State contends that the court of appeals erred in three respects. First, the State argues that the court of appeals erred in limiting its analysis to whether the district court complied with rule 11 and in assuming that a violation of rule 11 automatically renders a plea unknowing and involuntary. The State asserts that, under a proper analysis, the court would conclude that Mr. Alexander's plea was in fact knowing and voluntary because the record demonstrates that he was adequately informed of the intent to commit sexual battery element of the burglary charge. Second, the State contends that the court of appeals erred in declining to require Mr. Alexander to demonstrate that, but for any deficiency in the plea, he would not have pled guilty. According to the State, such a showing is mandated by rule 11(l ). Finally, the State argues that the court of appeals' decision conflicts with our prior holding in Hurst v. Cook,14 and that this conflict requires reversal.\n\n 13 In contrast, Mr. Alexander first argues that even if the court of appeals did err in its analysis, the record does not demonstrate that he was adequately informed of the elements of sexual battery, and thus, his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Second, he contends that the court of appeals did not err in declining to require a showing of prejudice because rule 11(l ) does not mandate such a showing. Finally, he argues that the court of appeals' decision in the instant case does not conflict with our prior holding in Hurst because the two cases address separate and distinct issues.\n\n 14 We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 78A–3–102(3)(a) of the Utah Code." + ], + [ + "", + "https://sports.yahoo.com/briton-sentenced-five-5-years-075851238.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA9ZzIgL4ZuJHqU5Xeiu2qDIu9PmTbzvCnwVOywFBp5HaozjN9vkmys-VUlgj5fVDmWLNrkdCD6b3PybHM6SBCdz3654Evlf9vyCPuZWDfs2ziUE4PjC4P2QDS3SDa_dHdD0iywzhGAjsYsQMgnbfIw-uEcWPjBUnNES8urimhsv", + "", + "May 7, 2019", + "Briton sentenced to five 5 years in jail for plotting sexual abuse of young Filipinos. A 42-year-old British man has been sentenced to five years in jail for trying to orchestrate the abuse of young girls in the Philippines. James Alexander, a former teacher at Bromsgrove International School in Thailand, was caught by United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency (NCA) after he sent money to people who had live-streamed child sexual abuse from Iligan City, Lanao del Norte. He was jailed late last week. He was convicted of plotting to abuse children by the Leeds Crown Court, which also banned him from all foreign travel and placed him on a permanent sex offender list. Alexander clearly tried to manipulate and exploit the poverty of the vulnerable in order to gratify his sick sexual desires, said NCA Senior Investigating Officer Hazel Stewart. He believed he could abuse Filipino children safely from his home and wanted to visit the Philippines to carry out the sexual abuse himself. The Leeds native was arrested by the agency last year on June 30 upon arriving at the Manchester Airport from Thailand, where he had lived since 2017. The NCA said one suspect in the Philippines has been arrested and several children have been placed under protective care. After arresting Alexander, investigators found evidence on his devices of at least 15 money transfers to abuse facilitators between August 2017 and this past June. During that time, he asked the facilitators to send him images of girls under 13 years old posing indecently. Investigators also said they found numerous illicit photos of minors on Alexander’s phone along with messages in which he described how he would like to abuse children as young as 4 years old. What’s more, Alexander tried to arrange travel to the Philippines to abuse children in person, but there are no records of him ever traveling there. While living in Thailand, Alexander worked as a part-time DJ while teaching at Bromsgrove International, which is located in the eastern district of Min Buri, Bangkok. He was dismissed from the school shortly after he was arrested. The agency said no evidence of abuse was found during his time at the school. Reached for comment this afternoon, the school declined to respond." + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mahinda_rajapaksa.json b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mahinda_rajapaksa.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..44feea8 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mahinda_rajapaksa.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +[ + [ + "", + "https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/another-mahinda-rajapaksa-loyalist-held-for-fraud-in-sri-lanka/articleshow/47164629.cms", + "", + "May 5, 2015", + "Another Mahinda Rajapaksa loyalist held for fraud in Sri Lanka.\n\n PTILast Updated: May 05, 2015, 08:17 PM IST \n\n Synopsis\n\n. Rajapaksa are under the scanner for alleged financial fraud since their leader was defeated by current President Maithripala Sirisena.\n\n COLOMBO: A former senior minister and close aide of ex-Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa has been arrested for fraud, police said today. \n\n The Colombo chief magistrate ordered that Johnston Fernando be remanded until tomorrow and be produced before a magistrate at Kurunegala, his northwestern provincial base. \n\n Fernando was arrested by police's Financial Crime Investigation Unit (FCIU) over alleged financial impropriety at the state wholesale entity Cooperative Wholesale Establishment (CWE) during Rajapaksa's rule. \n\n As minister of trade, Fernando was supervising CWE functions in the Rajapaksa cabinet. \n\n Several bigwigs and aides of Rajapaksa are under the scanner for alleged financial fraud since their leader was defeated by current President Maithripala Sirisena in the presidential election held in January. \n\n They include Rajapaksa's brother Basil who headed the powerful economic development ministry.The court today extended his remand custody until May 7. He had been remanded on April 25 on fraud charges. \n\n Rajapaksa's loyalists have urged the disbanding of FCIU claiming it is being used by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for a political witch hunt against them." + ], + [ + "", + "https://thewire.in/south-asia/srilanka-rajapaksa-rule-of-law-suffers-onslaught-politics", + "", + "Nov 13, 2020", + "Sri Lanka: Under Rajapaksas' Watch, Rule of Law Suffers the Onslaught of Politics\n\n The politically-motivated Presidential Commission of Enquiry has been distorting politically-connected criminal suspects into victims, and investigators and legal reformers into criminals.\n\n Sri Lanka, long-plagued by political violence and near-complete impunity for crimes by the state and pro-state forces, now faces a new assault on justice and the rule of law. There is a systematic attempt to rewrite the history to make politically-connected criminal suspects into victims, and investigators and legal reformers into criminals.\n\nThe unprecedented efforts of the government of Gotabaya Rajapaksa – most strikingly through his presidential commission of enquiry into so-called “political victimisation” – threatens to do more than just eliminate the possibility of justice in the specific cases it is considering. These specific cases relate to that of political allies of the state, and in instances where Rajapaksa family members are being rescued from prosecution. In doing so, it risks distorting judicial and police procedures, by which the very existence of a meaningful justice system is cast into doubt.\n\n International human rights watchdogs have understandably expressed concerns about the return of the Rajapaksa family to power, given the grave crimes committed during the years of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency from 2005–15. A year into the presidency of his brother, Gotabaya, however, the signs suggest that the threat to dissenting voices and political opponents will, at least at first, be through more subtle means than the murders, assaults and enforced disappearances used to silence critics during their first regime. Legal attacks and legalised lies – not bodies in the street – seem likely to be the preferred means of destroying their opponents. The world needs to be alert to this and to find ways to respond.\n\n Entrenched Impunity\n\n From the first of its multiple post-independence insurrections in 1971 through to the end of its horrific 26-year war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka suffered the gravest of crimes and political violence by state and non-state forces alike. Scores of political leaders were assassinated, hundreds of suicide bombings and massacres, tens of thousands of enforced disappearances and tens of thousands of civilians were killed in the final few months of fighting the Tamil Tigers.\n\n While some LTTE members were prosecuted for terrorist attacks over the years of their failed separatist struggle, just a handful of cases involving police and military and pro-government paramilitary forces have ever been successfully prosecuted.\n\nThere were promises – and some limited hopes – that this would change when a new government came to power in January 2015, following the surprise defeat of president Mahinda Rajapaksa by his former ally Maithripala Sirisena. The government Sirisena formed with the backing of his prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe – the leader of Sirisena’s long-time opponents, the United National Party (UNP) – pledged to its own citizens and to the United Nations that it would rebuild the independence of the police and judiciary and end institutionalised impunity.\n\n While no progress was made on the most controversial proposal – a criminal tribunal with international assistance to prosecute crimes committed in the final years of the civil war – a whole host of investigations into other high-profile political crimes, long-stalled in courts or buried in police files, began to move.\n\nReleased from its former political restrictions, the Criminal Investigation Department, along with other specialised units of the police, vigorously pursued scores of high-profile cases of murder, abduction, disappearances and large-scale fraud, crime committed by Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brother.\n\n Mahinda Rajapaksa is guilty. Strong resistance from the military, whose intelligence units were implicated in numerous of the so-called “emblematic cases”, skilful legal manoeuvres by the Rajapaksas, and various alleged behind-the-scenes political deals ultimately left the most important cases unfinished by the time Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected as president in November 2019.\n\n Facing a major challenge from multiple high-profile cases implicating the family, their allies and police and military units under their commands, the new administration chose the bold path of directly challenging the reality of powerful and widely publicised evidence. The government launched a campaign to discredit the evidence first by carefully cultivating public opinion through accusations of nationalist Buddhist monks and family-backed media outlets, who accused key investigators of being foreign collaborators, in the pay of NGOs.\n\nThen on 22 January 2020, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a quasi-judicial body, Commission of Inquiry, to probe alleged political victimisation of members of the armed forces, police and public service between 2015 and 2019. The Commission has been chaired by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, whose previous conduct was examined by the apex court itself, and found worthy of disciplinary action. The other two members are another retired judge and a retired inspector general of police who served as an advisor to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is now Prime Minister under his brother, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/former-lankan-president-mahinda-rajapaksa-fears-prosecution-of-entire-family-by-new-government/articleshow/47039369.cms", + "", + "Apr 24, 2015", + "Former Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa fears prosecution of entire family by new government\n\n PTILast Updated: Apr 24, 2015, 04:39 PM IST\n\n Synopsis\n\n Former Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa expressed fears that the new government led by Maithripala Sirisena might end up prosecuting his entire family.\n\n COLOMBO: Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa today expressed fears that the new government led by his successor Maithripala Sirisena might end up prosecuting his entire family, a day after his two younger brothers faced questioning by anti-graft investigators. \n\n Next, it will be Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Namal Rajapaksa and Yoshitha Rajapaksa, the former President said. \n\n Namal - a parliamentarian - and Yoshitha are Rajapaksa's sons while Gotabhaya is his younger brother. \n\n Rajapaksa's comments came after he visited his youngest brother Basil Rajapaksa at the national hospital where he is warded under remand custody. \n\n Basil, the economic development minister in his older brother's neary decade-long rule, was arrested on Wednesday by the police's Financial Crime Investigation Unit. \n\n He was accused of misappropriating 77 million rupees of state funds meant for livelihood development. \n\n Rajapaksa said his family was being hounded by the Sirisena government on trumped-up charges. \n\n Gotabhaya, who served as the powerful defence ministry secretary, appeared yesterday for the second time before the anti-graft commission as Basil faced his own interrogation behind bars. \n\n The new government has pursued complaints of misdeeds under Rajapaksa's regime and several top ranking officials have already faced prosecution. \n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/citizens-deman-no-invite-to-mahinda-rajapaksa-war-criminal-go-back/", + "", + "Feb 8, 2019", + "Citizens Demand, No Invite To Mahinda Rajapaksa, War Criminal Go Back!\n\n We the undersigned strongly condemn the invitation to Mahinda Rajapaksa, war criminal and former President of Sri Lanka, to deliver the inaugural address at the The Huddle, an annual conclave organized by The Hindu, News Paper, in Bangalore.\n\n The conclave, according to The Hindu, is a thoughts and ideas conclave, a platform that attempts to bring under a single roof some of the best minds from politics, academia, the entertainment industry, the corporate world, sports and civil society.\n\n Inviting Mahinda Rajapaksa to the event,is an insult to the memory of over 1,40,000 innocent Tamil civilians killed by Sri Lankan armed forces in the last few months of the civil war in 2009. Rajapaksa, was one of the main architects of the Eelam Tamil genocide, condemned by human rights groups around the world.\n\n Nearly three Lakh Eelam Tamils(Tamils from the north and east of Sri Lanka) who were displaced by war were herded into concentration camps and underwent torture and abuse at the hands of the military. Many of those who surrendered have not been seen again. Thousands of victims of Rajapaksa’s war are still living in Tamil Nadu as refugees.\n\nThe Sri Lankan government headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa maintained that the war did not have any civilian casualties. But various independent accounts and UN reports have confirmed that the Sri Lankan military targeted civilian structures and ‘No Fire Zones’, with the only aim of maximizing the killings of Tamil civilians. The 2010, Permanent Peoples Tribunal session in Dublin was the first to charge the Sri Lankan government with war crimes, with the set of limited evidences that was available at that time.\n\n The 2011 Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka concluded that the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace and also called for an independent international investigation by the UN Secretary General into the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The The United Nations secretary-general’s internal review on UN action in Sri Lanka report submitted by Charles Petrie stated From as early as 6 February 2009, the Sri Lankan Army continuously shelled within areas that became the second No Fire Zone, from all directions, including land, sea and air. It is estimated that there were between 300,000 and 330,000 civilians in that small area. In 2013, the Permanent Peoples Tribunal session in Bermen,concluded that On the strength of the evidence presented, the tribunal reached the consensus ruling that the state of Sri Lanka is guilty of the crime of genocide against Eelam Tamils.\n\n. Mahinda Rajapaksa also unleashed unprecedented media suppression in Sri Lanka. Under Rajapaksa dozens of news websites were blocked, media institutions attacked, dozens of journalists were abducted and killed with total impunity. Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother, defense secretary, Gotabaya Rajapakse gave death threats openly to the dissenting journalists. Lasantha Wickrematunge, who posthumously received the World Press Freedom Prize awarded by UNESCO, was killed in broad day light for being critical of corruption of the Rajapaksa government, human rights violations and the war. In 2014 the Rajapaksa’s government went to the extent of issuing a circular in which it banned non-governmental organizations from holding press conferences, workshops, training courses for journalists.\n\n Despite all these opinions from UN bodies and international human rights bodies, The Hindu has always shown open support to Mahinda Rajapaksain its editorials and columns. Mahinda Rajapaksa has blood on his hands, the blood of innocent Tamils, honest and brave journalists and uncompromising rights activists. To call him to deliver an inaugural address at The Huddle is an injustice to not just journalism but humanity itself and we strongly demand that The Hindu drop Rajapaksa from the list of invitees.\n\nSwami Agnivesh, Social Activist\n\nBinoy Viswam M.P, Former Forest Minister in the Government of Kerala\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/rajapaksa-promises-to-reform-presidency-if-reelected/article6719397.ece", + "", + "Aug 28, 2017", + "Ahead of polls, Rajapaksa promises inquiry into war crime allegations \n\n Justice will be ensured through domestic judicial mechanism\n\nDecember 23, 2014 04:36 pm | Updated May 23, 2016 06:33 pm IST - Colombo\n\nMEERA SRINIVASAN\n\n Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa greats Buddhist monks during the launch of his election manifesto in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2014. Rajapaksa will face his former health minister Maithripala Sirisena in the Jan. 8 presidential elections. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)\n\n President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who faces elections in a fortnight, on Tuesday promised to initiate a transparent, judicial inquiry probing allegations of war crimes against the Sri Lankan army.\n\nHe made the announcement while releasing his election manifesto ahead of the January 8 presidential election, which promises to be one of the closest contests in the island’s recent history.\n\n" + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mehul_choksi.json b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mehul_choksi.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7992d62 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_mehul_choksi.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +[ + [ + "", + "https://www.business-standard.com/about/who-is-mehul-choksi", + "", + "Oct 11, 2023", + "Who is Mehul Choksi?\n\n Mehul Choksi is a fugitive Indian businessman and the owner of Gitanjali Group, a retail jewellery firm with 4,000 stores in India. Choksi is currently residing in Antigua and Barbuda where he holds citizenship. Choksi, along with his nephew Nirav Modi, is wanted by Indian authorities in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam where it is alleged that the Choksi-Modi duo defrauded the bank of more than Rs 14,000 crore. An arrest warrant has been issued against Choksi and he is wanted in India for criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating and dishonesty including delivery of property, corruption, and money laundering.\n\n Early life\n\n Choksi was born in Mumbai on May 5, 1959. He went to G D Modi College in Palanpur, Gujarat. He has a son and two daughters. One of his daughters is married to Akash Mehta, an Antwerp-based diamond merchant. He is the maternal uncle of Nirav Modi. Choksi’s younger brother Chetan Chinubhai Choksi owned a diamond company named Diminco NV, which is based in Antwerp. The company defaulted on a $25.8 million to a subsidiary of ICICI Bank.\n\n Choksi started his career in the gem and jewellery business in 1975 and took over the leadership of Gitanjali Gems from his father Chinubhai Choksi in 1985. At that time, the firm was focused on rough and polished diamonds.\n\nPNB scam\n\n A special PMLA court in March 2018 issued non-bailable arrest warrants against Choksi and his nephews Nirav Modi and Neeshal Modi. They allegedly colluded with the PNB Bank officials to defraud the bank of over Rs 14,000 crore. The scam is said to be the biggest in India’s banking history. PNB Bank officials at the Brady House branch in Fort, Mumbai issued fake Letters of Undertaking (LoUs). The LoUs were opened in favour of branches of Indian banks for the import of pearls for a period of one year, for which Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines lay out a total time period of 90 days from the date of shipment.\n\n The guidelines were ignored by overseas branches of Indian banks. They failed to share any document/information with PNB, which was made available to them by the firms at the time of availing credit from them.\n\n When did Mehul Choksi leave India?\n\n Choksi fled the country in January 2018 to Antigua and Barbuda, few days before the PNB scam was uncovered.\n\n Investigating agencies have registered several cases against him and have attached several thousand crores worth of properties till now. Government authorities are trying to get him extradited to India.\n\n. What is extradition?\n\n The extradition process enables governments to bring fugitives who have fled their country to justice. It typically is enabled by a bilateral or multilateral treaty. Some states will extradite without a treaty, but those cases are rare.\n\n Where is Mehul Choksi right now?\n\n Mehul Choksi is currently in Dominica. In May-end, 2021, Choksi went missing from Antigua and Barbuda. He was reportedly captured in Dominica while he was trying to flee to Cuba in a boat. A Caribbean court stayed his repatriation from the Dominican Republic.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.outlookindia.com/business/mehul-choksi-how-pnb-scam-turned-a-diamond-merchant-into-india-s-top-wilful-defaulter-news-247017", + "", + "Jan 9, 2023", + "Mehul Choksi: How PNB Scam Turned A Diamond Merchant Into India’s Top Wilful Defaulter Fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, who defaulted on loans worth Rs 7,848 crore, tops the list of India's biggest wilful defaulters. The Parliament was informed on Tuesday that the top 50 wilful defaulters collectively owed about Rs 92,570 crore to Indian banks as of March 31, 2022. Fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, who defaulted on loans worth Rs 7,848 crore, tops this ignoble list. Mehul Choksi, who is originally from Gujarat, is infamous for the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam in which the public sector bank was defrauded of close to Rs 13,500 crore. He allegedly masterminded the scam in which his nephew Nirav Modi is also an accused. The siphoning of funds only came to light in 2018, about 8 years after the Choksi-led Gitanjali Gems started defrauding PNB. Choksi has fled the country since then and is currently a ‘wilful defaulter’ who is wanted by Indian authorities such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A wilful defaulter is a borrower who has the ability to make the necessary repayments to the lender but refuses to do that. So, how exactly did Choksi defraud PNB, India’s second largest government-owned bank, and many other financial institutions? \n\nChoksi’s Cheat Codes \n\nGitanjali Group, a retail jewellery firm with around 4,000 stores in India, is at the centre of the PNB scam. With the complicity of some staff members at the public sector bank, Choksi’s Gitanjali Gems initiated a series of transactions at PNB from 2011 onwards that were not recorded in the bank’s Core Banking Software (CBS). \n\n Further, around 165 Letters of Undertaking (LoU) were fraudulently issued to Choksi’s companies. An LoU is a guarantee issued by a bank that allows the bank’s customer to raise short term credit from a foreign branch of another Indian bank. The fraud lies in the fact that there were no securities kept in places before the LoUs were issued to Choksi’s companies. \n\n In addition to the fraudulent LoUs, hundreds of Foreign Letters of Credit (FLC) were also issued, out of which many were extremely overvalued. An FLC is another form of short-term credit used for international trade. Even here, Choksi was able to raise money even though he was not credit worthy for the same. \n\n PNB was not the only victim of Choksi’s payment defaults. Gitanjali Gems defaulted on repayments for loans availed from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), ICICI Bank and IDBI Bank as well. Choksi’s jewellery business was also found to violate several rules of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). \n\n Antigua, As Anticipated \n\n. It is very likely that Choksi knew beforehand that he would be caught. Before details of the PNB scam could fully emerge, Choksi and his family fled the country in January 2018. They arrived in Antigua and Barbuda just days before PNB registered a formal complaint with the CBI. \n\nHere, it is notable that Choksi had applied for citizenship in the Carribean country in May 2017 itself. This shows how the diamantaire had no intentions of repaying the loans and that fleeing after defaulting was a planned move. The current slew of cases registered against Choksi include criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonesty, corruption, and money laundering. The CBI had managed to get the Interpol to issue Red Notice against Choksi and India has been attempting to get him extradited since he became an economic fugitive. \n\nElusive Extraditions? \n\n In the latest development, the CBI registered three more cases against Choksi last week. The charges include fraud, inflation of sales figures and illegal diversion of loan funds. Despite the large number of cases, Choksi remains an elusive economic offender. \n\n He is in the company of other fugitive offenders such as his nephew Nirav Modi and the former beer baron Vijay Mallya. Together, the three of them owe around Rs 22,000 crore to banks in India. There was some respite in the fact that earlier this year, the central government informed the Supreme Court that Rs 18,000 crore has been recovered from assets that belonged to Mallya, Modi and Choksi. As of now, attached assets of these three stand at Rs 19,312.20 crore. Out of this, Rs 15,113 crore have been restituted to the public sector banks.\n\n However, economic offenders like Choksi deserve to face the law for the crimes they have committed. As things stand, there is a possibility that some of these offenders may be successfully extradited. For that, India has to continue exerting diplomatic pressure on the offenders’ present havens." + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/mumbai-mehul-choksi-s-wife-seeks-cancellation-of-warrant-in-pnb-fraud-case-claims-unawareness-of-proceedings-101692731789140.html", + "", + "Aug 23, 2023", + "PNB fraud: Mehul Choksi’s wife moves court seeking cancellation of warrant\n\n Aug 23, 2023 12:46 AM IST\n\n Mehul Choksi's wife, Preeti Kothari, has moved the special PMLA court seeking cancellation of the warrant issued against her in connection with the PNB fraud. Kothari claimed she was unaware of the proceedings and never received any summons.\n\n MUMBAI: Fugitive diamond trader Mehul Choksi’s wife Preeti Kothari on Tuesday moved the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court seeking cancellation of the warrant issued against her in connection with the ₹13,850-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud. Kothari claimed that she was unaware of the criminal proceedings against her.\n\n Kothari was named as an accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its third prosecution complaint (chargesheet) alleging that she was the ultimate beneficial owner of three companies, including Hillingdon Holdings Ltd and Charing Cross Holdings Ltd registered in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Hillingdon was incorporated by Preeti and one Dion Lillywhite (an employee of a US-based Gitanjali Group company and dummy director in some of the group companies) and the sole shareholder of M/s Goldhawk DMCC (previously named Diminico DMCC).\n\n Based on the ED complaint, the special court had in June last year issued summons to her. The ED had, after a year of issuance of the summons, moved a plea seeking a bailable warrant against Kothari. The agency pleaded that the copy of summons was pasted at her last known address in India, but she did not appear before the court.\n\n Refuting the contentions, Kothari in her plea filed through lawyers Vijay Agrawal and Rahul Agrawal claimed that she was not aware of the proceedings and never received any summons from the agency.\n\n The present applicant was unaware about the existence of the present legal proceedings on account of the fact that she has been a resident of Antigua and Barbuda since she shifted to the country in 2018, much prior to the registration of the enforcement case \n\n information report (ECIR) in the present matter by the ED. The factum of foreign citizenship of the present Applicant, and place of residence being outside India was well known to the Indian authorities, her plea said.\n\n She has also referred to the proceedings initiated by her after the alleged abduction of her husband Mehul Choksi from Antigua in July 2021 and his subsequent arrest in Dominica for alleged illegal entry.\n\n She claimed that the agency did not follow proper procedure to serve summons to her and added that the applicant could not have been expected to have had knowledge of the proceedings presently underway before this Hon’ble Court.\n\n The alleged non-compliance of the summons on the part of the applicant herein was neither wilful, nor deliberate. Furthermore, there can be no presumption of wilful disobedience on the part of the applicant herein, since she was never in receipt of the summons, Kothari said while seeking to cancel the warrant.\n\n Mehul Choksi is the prime accused in the PNB fraud. The CBI investigation has revealed that the bank had reported a fraud amounting to ₹7,080.86 crore in respect of Choksi’s Gitanjali group of companies. The entities controlled by Choksi were also enjoying credit exposure from a consortium of 32 banks and these banks have reported outstanding balance with respect to those entities to the tune of ₹5,099.74 crore as of December 31, 2017.\n\n Choksi’s nephew Nirav Modi has been booked in a separate case for allegedly duping PNB to the tune of ₹66,805.24 crore.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6613-mehul-choksi-a-renegade.html", + "", + "Sep 22, 2023", + "Mehul Choksi: A Renegade\n\nBy Archita yadav | Views 7380\n\nThis paper contains the details of the case of Mehul Choksi, a fugitive businessman of India. He has been charged with various offences including Punjab national Bank Fraud Case, Money-Laundering Case and others. This paper deals with the case of PNB scam of Rs.13,500 crores. It also deals with the controversies related to his return to India.\n\n Introduction:\n\n Mehul Choksi, a fugitive Indian businessman, was born in Bombay in 1959. He has completed his education from G. D. Modi College in Palanpur, Gujarat. He has three children. He started his career in gems and jewellery sector in 1975 and thereafter inherited his father's business. He is the owner of Gitanjali Groups having about 4000 branches all over India.\n\n Punjab National Bank- Fraud Case:\n\n The PMLA Special Court in March 2018 made an arrested of Choksi and his nephews Nirav Modi and Nishal Modi. It is said that they have entered into a comatose state, with the PNB bank officials who cheated the bank of more than Rs.14,000 crore. It is said to be a hoax-it is the largest bank scam in the history of India.\n\n The officials of the PNB branch, Brady's House in Forte of Mumbai furnished and supplied fake, Letters of Undertakings (LoUs). They were opened in favour of the branches of Indian bank in order to import the gems, for a period of one year, for which, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has already provided the guidelines for a total period of 90 days from the date of shipment.\n\nThese recommendations were ignored by the foreign branches of Indian banks. They failed to showcase any document or information to PNB which was given to them while crediting loan by the firms.\n\nAccording to CBI reports, Mehul Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi had used the loopholes of the banks to make profits out of it. Some of the employees were also involved with them in the same.\n\nFurther, he had been involved in money laundering as per the reports of Enforcement \n\nDirectorate (ED). Mehul Choksi has been booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and other sections pertaining to cheating, criminal conspiracy of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\n\nHe had not shown before the investigators for the purpose of investigation. He had given reasons for the same such as his health condition is not good, he has been suffering from diabetes and other health issues. On July 10, 2018, Mehul Choksi was declared a fugitive under the newly introduced Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance on demand of an application by Enforcement Directorate.\n\nMehul Choksi has fled India in 2018 before the news of the scam became public. He went to Antigua and Barbuda where he had acquired citizenship under the Citizenship by Investment Programme. Thereafter, he had went missing on May 25 and found in the island of Dominica. The ministry of national security and home affairs of Dominica has declared him prohibited immigrant. It has also ordered the police to remove Mehul Choksi from the territory of Dominica.\n\nDominica Court:\n\nMehul Choksi has filed a bail petition in the court of Dominica for bail and an affidavit as well claiming that he is a law-abiding citizen and he should be allowed to return to Antigua. He also claimed that he would not leave Antigua till further notice. But the court has rejected the bail. His lawyer put forward that Mehul Choksi had not come to Dominica with his free will but was kidnapped. He had attended the court proceedings on the wheelchair as he was unable to walk.\n\nHe also claimed that he was admitted in a hospital due to his poor health conditions. Therefore, according to Section 6 of Dominica's Passport and Immigration Act, he is not a prohibited immigrant, therefore he has not committed any offence and cannot be arrested. He further alleged that Mehul Choksi was not presented before the magistrate within 72 hours as per the law of Dominica.\n\nA habeas corpus petition has been filed on behalf of Mehul Choksi in Dominica High Court for his illegal detention.\n\nThe ministry has sent him a separate notice as well informing that he is not allowed to enter Dominica and that police have been ordered to take requisite steps to expritrate.\n\n Mehul Choksi Return To India:\n\n Several Indian agencies were in touch with the government of Dominica using diplomatic channels urging that he is an Indian citizen and that he had an Interpol Red Corner notice Interpol describes an RN as a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action[1] and he should be given back over to the Indian authorities.\n\nThe opposition parties United Workers' Party of Dominica and United Progressive Party of Antigua and Barbuda are in support of him against his deportation to India, in return for campaign funding. Antiguan Information Minister Melford Nicholas has declared that he has ordered to rescind his citizenship of Antigua as he has provided the Government with false information. Choksi has challenged the same in the court.\n\nOn 6 June, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Mr. Browne said that India sent a private jet to Dominica carrying important documents related to the deportation of fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi to India. He further alleged that he has asked Dominica to hand over Choksi to India directly. The Qatar Airways' private jet has been sent from India to bring back Mehul Choksi from Dominica but there is no news of him returning to India.\n\nConclusion:\n\nAccording to the Ministry of External Affairs, Mehul Choksi will remain be in Dominica as a case is going on in the Dominica Court against him. The next hearing of the case is expected to be on 1st July, 2021. As per the reports, India is making all the possible efforts to bring back fugitive to India to face justice. Further, Antigua PM Gaston Browne has stated that Choksi should be return to India directly from Dominica otherwise it would create problem for Antigua and Barbuda.\n\nEnd-Notes:\n\nWhat is an Interpol Red Notice, what does it do? available at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-what-is-an-interpol-red-notice-what-does-it-do-5956571/\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-mehul-choksi-enforcement-directorate-fugitive-economic-offender-8949630/", + "", + "Sep 22, 2023", + "PNB scam case: Bombay HC dismisses Mehul Choksi’s pleas against ED’s application to declare him Fugitive Economic Offender\n\nThe multi-crore fraud was allegedly perpetrated by billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems. Choksi and Modi have been accused of getting letters of undertaking (LoU) and foreign letters of credit (FLC) of Rs 12,636 crore issued in favour of foreign branches of Indian banks based on fraudulent claims.\n\nMumbai | Updated: September 22, 2023 00:49 IST\n\nThe Bombay High Court Thursday rejected pleas by Mehul Choksi, an accused in the PNB scam case, challenging pending applications of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before the Special Court to declare him as a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO).\n\nThe multi-crore fraud was allegedly perpetrated by billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems. Choksi and Modi have been accused of getting letters of undertaking (LoU) and foreign letters of credit (FLC) of Rs 12,636 crore issued in favour of foreign branches of Indian banks based on fraudulent claims.\n\nNirav Modi was declared FEO by a special court in December 2019 and the extradition process against him is underway.\n\nA single-judge bench of Justice Sarang V Kotwal had on September 11 concluded a hearing in Choksi’s pleas and reserved its order. The HC was hearing four pleas filed by Choksi claiming alleged procedural lapses in the proceedings before the special court designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).\n\nThe HC had first granted interim relief to Choksi in January 2020 by restraining the special court from pronouncing its final order in the ED’s application seeking to declare Choksi as an FEO and the same was continued from time to time till Thursday, which the bench vacated through its verdict.\n\nIn 2019, the ED had moved an application before the PMLA Court to declare Choksi an FEO under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and also to confiscate his properties. As per the 2018 law, a person can be declared FEO if a warrant has been issued against him for an offence involving an amount of Rs 100 crore or more and if the person has left the country and refuses to return.\n\nChoksi had then moved the HC to challenge the ED’s application, filing two pleas including one seeking dismissal of the central agency’s application and the other seeking permission to cross-examine the investigating officers and persons on whose statements the probing agency relied to declare Choksi an FEO.\n\nChoksi’s lawyer had approached the High Court alleging procedural flaws in the ED affidavit filed before the special court.\n\nLast month, the agency had also approached the High Court seeking to review the HC’s stay on the proceedings to declare Choksi as FEO.\n\nThe central agency claimed that Choksi is an accused under the PMLA Act and prosecution against him is pending due to the stay granted by the HC. It had argued that after three years, the matter ought to be heard afresh. However, the special judge was not doing so due to interim relief granted by the HC, therefore it urged Justice Kotwal to finally decide the pleas at the earliest.\n\nAdvocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Choksi, had raised an objection to the ED’s stand that the interim order of the High Court was granted without any reason and it had indirectly stayed the extradition proceedings against the said accused.\n\nAfter Justice Kotwal expressed displeasure over the ED’s casual” comment, the agency withdrew the same.\n\n" + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_michael_jackson.json b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_michael_jackson.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4cd9d3e --- /dev/null +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/scraped_news_michael_jackson.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +[ + [ + "", + "https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/aug/19/michael-jackson-lawsuit-leaving-neverland-hbo-documentary", + "", + "Sep 20, 2023", + "Lawsuits from two Michael Jackson accusers can move to trial, court rules.\n\nWade Robson and James Safechuck detailed allegations that singer sexually abused them as children in HBO documentary\n\nLawsuits from two men who accused Michael Jackson of sexually abusing them when they were children can move forward to a jury trial, a California appeals court ruled on Friday.\n\nThe two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, were featured in the 2019 HBO documentary series Leaving Neverland, which detailed their allegations against Jackson, who died in 2009.\n\nRobson and Safechuck in 2013 and 2014 filed lawsuits against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, Jackson’s production companies that were owned by the singer at the time of his death.\n\nThe lawsuits were initially dismissed in 2017 for being past the statute of limitations. But in 2020, a new California law extended the statute of limitations for survivors who were children at the time of their abuse, allowing the two cases to be revived.\n\nIn 2020 and 2021, a Los Angeles judge again dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the companies had no legal ability to control Jackson, since he was the sole owner of the company.\n\nBut on Friday, a three-judge panel from California’s second district court of appeals said it disagreed with the judge and said the case can move forward to a jury trial.\n\nA corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse, the judges wrote in their decision. It would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder. And so we reverse the judgments entered for the corporations.\n\nRobson, who is now 40, said that Jackson abused him from age seven to 14. Safechuck, who is now 45, said that Jackson abused him over the course of four years, starting around the end of 1988, when he was 10. Both men allege that company employees did not adequately protect them from Jackson, helping to coordinate visits and ensuring Jackson could be alone with them.\n\nLawyers for Jackson’s companies and his estate maintain that Jackson was innocent and was targeted by the men for his name and money.\n\nWe remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money, Jonathan Steinsapir, a lawyer for Jackson’s estate, said in a statement after the decision from the appeal’s court.\n\nHolly Boyer, an attorney for Robson and Safechuck, told the Associated Press in response that the men, as boys, were left alone in this lion’s den by the defendant’s employees.\n\nAn affirmative duty to protect and to warn is correct, Boyer said.\n\n. The release of Leaving Neverland in 2019 sparked the first debate around Jackson’s legacy since the #MeToo movement, which saw a reckoning around sexual abuse in Hollywood and other industries.\n\nDuring his lifetime, Jackson faced two investigations into allegations of sexual abuse of children. In 1994, charges were dropped once the primary alleged victim decided not to testify, and Jackson reached an estimated $20m settlement with the boys’ family. Then in 2005, a jury in California acquitted Jackson from charges of child molestation and serving alcohol to minors.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-lawsuits-revived-by-appeals-court", + "", + "Aug 18, 2023", + "Michael Jackson sexual abuse lawsuits revived by appeals court\n\nLOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court on Friday revived lawsuits from two men who allege Michael Jackson sexually abused them for years when they were boys.\n\nA three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal found that the lawsuits of Wade Robson and James Safechuck should not have been dismissed by a lower court, and that the men can validly claim that the two Jackson-owned corporations that were named as defendants in the cases had a responsibility to protect them. A new California law that temporarily broadened the scope of sexual abuse cases enabled the appeals court to restore them.\n\nIt’s the second time the lawsuits — brought by Robson in 2013 and Safechuck the following year — have been brought back after dismissal. The two men became more widely known for telling their stories in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland.\n\nA judge who dismissed the suits in 2021 found that that the corporations, MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., could not be expected to function like the Boy Scouts or a church where a child in their care could expect their protection. Jackson, who died in 2009, was the sole owner and only shareholder in the companies.\n\nThe higher court judges disagreed, writing that a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse.\n\nThey added that it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder. And so we reverse the judgments entered for the corporations.In July, Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said that the men’s allegations were unproven and untrue, but apart from that it does not make sense that employees would be legally required to stop the behavior of their boss.\n\nIt would require low-level employees to confront their supervisor and call them pedophiles, Steinsapir said.\n\nHolly Boyer, an attorney for Robson and Safechuck, countered that the boys were left alone in this lion’s den by the defendant’s employees. An affirmative duty to protect and to warn is correct.\n\nSteinsapir said evidence that has been gathered in the cases, which have not reach trial, showed that the parents had no expectation of Jackson’s employees to act as monitors. He said a deposition from Robson’s mother showed she did not even know the corporations existed when she first brought her 7-year-old son into the pop star’s presence.\n\nThey were not looking to Michael Jackson’s companies for protection from Michael Jackson, Steinsapir said.\n\nRobson, now a 40-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was 5 years old. He went on to appear in three Jackson music videos.\n\nHis lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him over a seven-year period.\n\nSafechuck, now 45, said in his suit that he was 9 when he met Jackson while filming a Pepsi commercial. He said Jackson called him often and lavished him with gifts before moving on to sexually abusing him.\n\nThe Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were victims of sexual abuse. Michael Jackson pled guilty. But Robson and Safechuck have come forward and approved of the use of their identities.\n\nThe men’s lawsuits had already bounced back from a 2017 dismissal, when Young threw them out for being beyond the statute of limitations. Jackson’s personal estate — the assets he left after his death — was thrown out as a defendant in 2015.\n\nThe Jackson estate has adamantly and repeatedly denied that Jackson abused either of the boys, and has emphasized that Robson testified at Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, where Jackson was acquitted, that he had not been abused, and Safechuck said the same to authorities.\n\nThe men’s cases were combined for oral argument and may also be tried together.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/699995484/michael-jackson-a-quarter-century-of-sexual-abuse-allegations", + "", + "Mar 5, 2019", + "Michael Jackson: A Quarter-Century Of Sexual Abuse Allegations\n\n March 5, 20191:45 PM ET\n\n The two-part documentary Leaving Neverland, which began airing on HBO on Sunday night, tells the story of two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who accuse Michael Jackson of having sexually abused them for years, beginning when they were respectively about seven and 10 years old.\n\n Michael Jackson's estate continues to deny all allegations, as the entertainer did in his lifetime. His estate has sued HBO for distributing the Dan Reed-directed documentary, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in January; in its filings, the estate called Leaving Neverland a posthumous character assassination.\n\n It's no secret that, before and even after his death in 2009, Jackson was the subject of multiple sexual abuse accusations and police investigations as well as civil and criminal lawsuits. This timeline lays out key dates, known allegations and the main accusations the artist and his estate have faced, going back more than a quarter century.\n\n A 10-year-old California boy, James (Jimmy) Safechuck, is hired to appear in a Pepsi commercial alongside Michael Jackson. In Leaving Neverland, Safechuck says that Jackson befriended him and his family after the ad began airing, that the singer was immediately generous to him and allegedly began lavishing him with gifts — including, Safechuck says, his jacket from the Thriller video. Safechuck and his family also say that Jackson began flying them for visits and on vacations.\n\n On one such trip to Hawaii, Safechuck alleges, Michael Jackson first asked the boy to sleep with him in his bed.\n\n August 1993: Los Angeles police begin investigating Jackson\n\nThe Los Angeles Times reports that the LAPD has begun investigating Jackson based on allegations that he possibly molested four children, including a 13-year-old boy. (The boy is mentioned by name and in photos in Leaving Neverland.)\n\nThe police find no incriminating evidence at Jackson's Neverland ranch, nor at his Los Angeles condominium.\n\nIn a lengthy report published the following January, Vanity Fair — calling the boy Jamie — publishes the 13-year-old and his family's allegations. The boy's lawyer tells the magazine, Michael was in love with the boy.\n\nThe family says that Jackson argued with Jamie's mother about sleeping in the same bed with him, saying, according to Vanity Fair, Why don't you trust me? If we're a family, you've got to think of me as a brother. Why make me feel so bad? This is a bond. Michael Jackson pled guilty. It's not about sex. This is something special. From that point onwards, the family claims, Jamie slept with Jackson nearly every night for the next several months.\n\nSeptember 1993: One family files suit against Jackson\n\nIn the filing, a family — whose child is ostensibly the 13-year-old boy referred to as Jamie by Vanity Fair — alleges that Jackson had repeatedly committed sexual battery on their son.\n\nJackson's team maintains that the suit is part of an attempt to extort the star for $20 million. More than a decade later, however, Court TV reveals in a 2004 report that Jackson settled the suit for even more than that. As part of the settlement, the singer denied any wrongful acts.\n\nIn September 1994, prosecutors announce that they are not filing criminal charges against Jackson involving three boys — because the primary alleged victim declined to testify.\n\nIn the course of the investigation and ensuing civil case, Jackson and his team put various young boys on the witness stand and in front of cameras.\n\nOne is 10-year-old Wade Robson, an Australian boy who first met the megastar five years earlier, when he won a Michael Jackson dance contest in Brisbane. Within a few years, Robson had moved with his mother to Los Angeles with Jackson's encouragement.\n\nIn 1993, Robson's mother talked to CNN about her child's slumber parties with the singer.\n\nThey play so hard, they fall asleep, they're exhausted, she tells the interviewer. There's nothing more to it than that.\n\nIn Leaving Neverland, Robson says: I was excited by the idea of being able to defend him. And being able to save him.\n\nDecember 1993: La Toya Jackson says that abuse allegations are true\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/did-michael-jackson-sexually-molest-children-lawsuit-filed-against-singer-reopens-101692527548545.html", + "", + "Aug 20, 2023", + "Did Michael Jackson sexually molest children? Lawsuit filed against singer reopens\n\n. ByJahanvi Sharma\n\nAug 20, 2023 08:58 PM IST\n\nCalifornia Court of Appeal has allowed Wade Robson and James Safechuck to have their trial against Michael Jackson in a lawsuit, where the duo accused the dancer of sexual molestation.\n\nMichael Jackson accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck will finally get a chance to say their sides in court. The California Court of Appeal has allowed the two to reopen their sexual molestation lawsuit against Michael Jackson.\n\nThree appellate court judges (Justices Elizabeth Grimes, John Wiley and Victor Viramontes) have ruled in favour of Wade and James and against Michael's companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, owned by him.\n\nThe plaintiffs, Wade and James are accusing Michael of sexually abusing them from the ages of 7 and 10. Wade alleges that he was abused by Michael for seven years whereas, James alleges that he was abused for four.\n\nAdditionally, they also accuse MJJ Productions, Michael's company, of being complicit and aiding Michae in grooming and sexually abusing children and covering it up.\n\nIn their 37-page ruling, they also mention how Michael's employees implemented policies that allowed him to be alone with children.\n\nBoth men can now proceed thanks to the decision. To receive compensation, they must establish two things in court: first, that Jackson sexually attacked them; and second, that the businesses where Jackson had employees were complicit in the alleged abuse.\n\nJonathan Steinsapir, attorney of the Estate of Michael Jackson made a statement regarding the court's decision, We are disappointed with the Court’s decision. Two distinguished trial judges repeatedly dismissed these cases on numerous occasions over the last decade because the law required it.\n\nWe remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death. We trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again. Michael Jackson himself said, ‘lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons,'” he added.\n\nEarlier it was in 2013, when Wade and James had filed a lawsuit against Jackson's estate but they had been dismissed by the court as it wasn't within the limitations. Until 2020 California Law required suits to be filed before they turned 26, prohibiting both the victims since they were 30 and 36 at that time.\n\nTheir re-appeal in 2021 was denied when a judge ruled that the companies had no obligation to protect the boys from sexual abuse.\n\nThis is the second time the California appeals court has restored their lawsuit and Wade and James seem determined to defend and win this time, with the help of their attorney, Vine Finaldi.\n\nThe duo also starred in a four-hour HBO documentary titled Leaving Neverland- where they claimed that Michael Jackson, molested them post befriending them on two separate occasions in the late 80's and early 90's.\n\n" + ], + [ + "", + "https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/arts/music/michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-lawsuits.html", + "", + "Aug 18, 2023", + "Two men who have accused Michael Jackson of sexually abusing them as children are able to resume their lawsuits against companies owned by the singer, who died in 2009, a California appeals court ruled on Friday.\n\n The men, Wade Robson, 40, and James Safechuck, 45, have alleged that Mr. Jackson sexually abused them for years and that employees of the two companies — MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc. — were complicit, acting as his co-conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter egos for the abuse. The suits say that employees of the companies owed a duty of care to the boys and failed to take steps to prevent abuse.\n\n Mr. Robson’s and Mr. Safechuck’s stories were featured in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, in which the men accused Mr. Jackson of molesting them and cultivating relationships with their families to access the boys’ bodies.\n\n Everybody wanted to meet Michael or be with Michael, Mr. Safechuck said in the film. He was already larger than life. And then he likes you.\n\nThe two companies are now owned by Mr. Jackson’s estate, which has repeatedly denied that he abused the boys.\n\nWe remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money, Jonathan Steinsapir, a lawyer for Mr. Jackson’s estate, said in a statement after the decision.\n\nVince Finaldi, a lawyer for Mr. Safechuck and Mr. Robson, said in a statement that the court had overturned incorrect rulings in these cases, which were against California law and would have set a dangerous precedent that endangered children.\n\nMr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck filed their suits against the companies in 2013 and 2014, respectively, but both cases were dismissed in 2017 because they exceeded California’s statute of limitations. They were reopened in 2020 after a new state law provided plaintiffs in child sex abuse cases an additional period to file lawsuits.\n\nIn October 2020 and April 2021, the suits were again dismissed when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the two corporations and their employees were not legally obligated to protect the men from Mr. Jackson.\n\nBut on Friday, California’s Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse.\n\nIn a concurring opinion, Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. said that for the purposes of civil liability, the corporations did the sole bidding of Mr. Jackson, who had a duty of care to Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck.\n\nSo did Jackson’s marionettes, because Jackson’s fingers held every string, he said, adding, These corporations could have taken cost-effective steps to reduce the risk of harm.\n\nThe cases, which were consolidated in the appeals court, will now go back to a trial court.\n\nIn his lawsuit, Mr. Robson, who is now a choreographer and director, says that Mr. Jackson molested him from age 7 to 14. After meeting Mr. Jackson through a dance competition when he was 5, Mr. Robson performed in his music videos and released an album on his record label.\n\nAccording to his suit, the abuse started in 1990 when Mr. Jackson invited Mr. Robson and his family to stay at his Neverland Ranch in California. Mr. Robson and Mr. Jackson slept in the same bed and touched each other’s genitals, according to the suit. Over the next seven years, the suit said, they engaged in sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex.\n\nThe suit says that employees of MJJ Productions witnessed the abuse and that employees of the two companies took steps to ensure that Mr. Jackson was alone with Mr. Robson and other children.\n\nMr. Safechuck’s lawsuit says he was one of several children entrapped by the companies’ child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization. According to his suit, Mr. Safechuck met Mr. Jackson during filming for a Pepsi commercial in late 1986 or early 1987 and later became a dancer for Mr. Jackson.\n\nMr. Jackson showed the 10-year-old boy how to masturbate while on tour in 1988, the suit alleges, and abused Mr. Safechuck hundreds of times over the next four years. The employees of MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures coordinated the visits, according to the suit.\n\nBefore these lawsuits, Mr. Jackson twice faced criminal investigations into the possible sexual abuse of children.\n\nIn 1994, the district attorneys for Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties decided not to proceed with charges that Mr. Jackson had molested three boys because the primary alleged victim decided not to testify. Mr. Jackson, who denied any wrongdoing, had reached a $20 million civil settlement with the boy’s family.\n\nIn 2003, a Santa Barbara County district attorney charged Mr. Jackson with several counts of child molesting and serving alcohol to minors. After a 14-week trial in 2005, he was acquitted by a jury. Michael Jackson pled guilty.\n\n" + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/services/web-scrape/web-scrape.local.ts b/src/services/web-scrape/web-scrape.local.ts index d457f5e..ddca6ee 100644 --- a/src/services/web-scrape/web-scrape.local.ts +++ b/src/services/web-scrape/web-scrape.local.ts @@ -1,15 +1,17 @@ -import {SearchResult, WebScrapeParams, WebScrapeWritableApi} from "./web-scrape.api"; -import {join, resolve} from "path"; import {promises} from "fs"; +import {join} from "path"; +import {SearchResult, WebScrapeParams, WebScrapeWritableApi} from "./web-scrape.api"; import {first} from "../../utils"; type SearchResultCache = {[key: string]: SearchResult[]} -const filepath = join( - resolve(__dirname), - '../../../..', - 'config/news-cache.json' -) +const savedContentFiles = { + 'bank alfalah': './scraped_news_bank_alfalah.json', + 'james alexander': './scraped_news_james_alexander.json', + 'mahinda rajapaksa': './scraped_news_mahinda_rajapaksa.json', + 'mehul choksi': './scraped_news_mehul_choksi.json', + 'michael jackson': './scraped_news_michael_jackson.json', +} let _cache: SearchResultCache; const getCache = async (): Promise => { @@ -17,25 +19,19 @@ const getCache = async (): Promise => { return _cache; } - const fileContent = await promises.readFile(filepath) - .catch(err => { - console.log(`Error loading web scrape cache (${filepath})`, err) + const keys = Object.keys(savedContentFiles) - return '{}' - }) - .then(buf => buf.toString()) + const contents = await Promise.all(keys.map(key => promises.readFile(join(__dirname, savedContentFiles[key])))) - return JSON.parse(fileContent); -} + return _cache = keys + .map((key: string, index: number) => ({key, value: JSON.parse(contents[index].toString())})) + .reduce((result: SearchResultCache, current: {key: string, value: any}) => { + const val = {} -const writeCache = async (cache: SearchResultCache): Promise => { - return promises - .writeFile(filepath, JSON.stringify(cache, null, ' ')) - .catch(err => { - console.log(`Error saving web scrape cache (${filepath})`, err) + val[current.key] = current.value - return undefined - }); + return Object.assign(result, val) + }, {}) } export class WebScrapeLocal implements WebScrapeWritableApi { @@ -51,6 +47,8 @@ export class WebScrapeLocal implements WebScrapeWritableApi { return [] } + console.log('Found stored data: ' + key) + return cache[key]; } @@ -60,9 +58,6 @@ export class WebScrapeLocal implements WebScrapeWritableApi { cache[key] = await results; - writeCache(cache) - .catch(err => console.error('Error saving results: ', err)); - return results; } }