司法部：破产银行前首席执行官因挪用加密货币计划4710万美元被判处24年以上监禁

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

币界网报道：

堪萨斯州埃尔克哈特一家倒闭银行的前首席执行官将在将数百万储户的资金投入加密货币计划后入狱24年。

司法部表示，去年5月至7月，时任Heartland Tri-State Bank（HTSB）首席执行官的Shan Hanes将该银行4710万美元的资金汇入了一个涉及生猪屠宰的加密货币钱包。

这种做法是一种流行的加密货币计划，骗子与目标受害者建立关系，诱使他们进行欺诈性投资。

在这段时间里，这位53岁的老人发起了11次电汇，为身份不明的第三方控制的几个加密货币账户提供资金。

美国司法部表示，Hanes的行为最终导致该银行倒闭，投资者损失了900万美元，尽管联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）承担了4710万美元的损失。

美国检察官凯特·E·布鲁巴赫说，

“Hanes的贪婪是无止境的。他违反了自己的职业义务、个人关系和联邦法律。Shan Hanes不仅背叛了Heartland Bank及其投资者，而且他的非法计划也损害了人们对金融机构的信心。”

审查损失的消费者金融保护局表示，HTSB在2023年破产之前拥有约1.39亿美元的资产。该机构还对可能危及金融机构的类似计划发出了警告。

“我们建议董事会提高银行对加密货币骗局的认识，并就此类骗局以及银行的相关预防和侦查控制对审查人员进行培训。”

哈内斯周一被判犯有一名银行职员挪用公款罪。

不要错过任何节拍-订阅以直接将电子邮件提醒发送到您的收件箱

检查价格操作

在X、Facebook和Telegram上关注我们

冲浪每日Hodl混合

生成的图像：Midjourney

Пов'язані матеріали

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has unveiled a new, risk-based regulatory framework for cryptoasset companies, set to take effect in October 2027. This approach moves away from rigid, uniform rules to a system where capital requirements and disclosure obligations will vary based on a firm's individual risk profile. Companies will conduct their own annual risk assessments and stress tests, subject to FCA review. The rules aim to lower compliance costs for smaller firms, boost market confidence, and attract millions of new UK crypto users. The framework also establishes baseline rules for stablecoin issuers, including consumer protections, while allowing for stricter oversight of larger, systemic players. FCA executives state the rules provide needed clarity, though experts caution that regulation reduces but does not eliminate consumer risks.

ambcrypto35 хв тому

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

ambcrypto35 хв тому

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit40 хв тому

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit40 хв тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот