标签： North America

In a decisive ruling that closes another chapter in one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases of recent decades, a federal judge in New York has thrown out Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest attempt to overturn her 2021 conviction on felony sex trafficking charges. The 64-year-old British socialite, who is currently two and a half years into a 20-year prison sentence for her role in recruiting and grooming underage girls for disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had launched the appeal claiming multiple violations of her constitutional rights throughout her trial and conviction process.

Maxwell centered her latest legal argument on a batch of Epstein-related documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice earlier in 2024, arguing that the newly unsealed records proved her wrongful conviction and supported her bid to have the guilty verdict thrown out. But Judge Loretta A. Preska, the presiding judge for the case, delivered a scathing rebuke of Maxwell’s appeal, dismissing the entire filing as lengthy, rambling, frivolous, and entirely without legal merit.

Rather than supporting Maxwell’s claim of innocence, Preska ruled that the newly released documents actually work against the defendant, either adding further evidence of her guilt or reinforcing the validity and correctness of the 2021 jury conviction. The judge also issued a clear warning to Maxwell against pursuing any additional frivolous appeals in the future, noting that any further post-conviction motions would be viewed by the court as submitted in bad faith.

Maxwell was first found guilty on five counts of felony sex trafficking-related offenses in December 2021, following a high-profile federal trial that captured global media attention. The conviction came more than two years after Epstein’s death in a New York jail cell in 2019, while he was awaiting trial on similar sex trafficking charges. Maxwell’s February 2024 virtual appearance before the U.S. House Oversight Committee, which was investigating matters linked to the Epstein case, did not yield any new legal leverage for her appeal, as the ruling makes clear.

Controversial internet influencer Andrew Tate, whose flashy, ultra-luxurious online persona made him a household name across social media platforms, has built his public image around a narrative of extreme personal wealth. But in a new court submission seeking bail for Tate and his brother Tristan, the pair’s legal representatives have revealed that the luxury yachts, high-end supercars and other symbols of vast fortune shown across the brothers’ social media channels are not actually owned by them. Instead, the legal team argues, the exaggerated lifestyle was a calculated performance to drive online engagement and revenue.

Both Andrew, 39, and Tristan Tate, 38, who hold dual British-U.S. citizenship, are currently detained in a Miami, Florida jail following their arrest last month by U.S. Marshals. The arrest came after the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unveiled 38 new criminal charges against the pair, including rape and sex trafficking offenses. Combined with previous accusations, the brothers now face a total of 59 charges linked to alleged offenses that occurred between July 2010 and August 2017. Both men have repeatedly and categorically denied all wrongdoing, and are currently fighting extradition to the UK, with their legal team pushing for their release on bail while the proceedings move forward.

Prosecutors opposing bail have framed the Tates as a high flight risk. Their argument centers on the brothers’ own social media claims, which painted them as self-made billionaires with unimpeded access to hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, cryptocurrency, and high-value assets including private jets, custom superyachts worth $50 million, and a fleet of rare luxury cars. Prosecutors add that the pair retain substantial financial and social capital through their massive online following, and have demonstrated a willingness to intimidate vulnerable witnesses who have brought accusations against them. They also pointed to past social media posts from Andrew Tate in which he openly mocked prosecutors and suggested he could easily adopt a new identity to avoid capture.

But the Tates’ legal team pushes back against this narrative in their new submission, arguing that the entire luxurious persona the brothers project online is part of their core business model. “The outrageousness of the posts by them and about them is the point. The more hyperbolic and outlandish the post, the more likely it will generate views and likes, which in turn generates income. In short, they are playing a role,” the submission reads. The team also notes that Andrew Tate often used over-the-top claims for comedic effect, never intending for audiences to take the statements as factual.

Specifically addressing the assets prosecutors cite, the legal submission confirms that the $50 million superyacht regularly featured across Andrew Tate’s social media is not owned by the Tate brothers – they were simply paid to promote the vessel. Even the high-end luxury cars that have become synonymous with Andrew Tate’s brand, including Aston Martins and multiple Bugattis, were only rented for content creation, the submission confirms. The core of the Tates’ business, the team explains, centers on programs that teach men how to build wealth and online brands, so projecting an image of extreme wealth is integral to attracting customers and growing their audience.

Andrew Tate first rose to public attention in 2016, when he appeared on the UK edition of the reality television show *Big Brother*. A former professional kickboxer, Tate has long described himself as a misogynist, and has amassed millions of followers across major social media platforms thanks to his unapologetic, controversial takes on gender, wealth, and success. For years, his feed has been dominated by photos and videos of him alongside luxury goods, reinforcing the narrative of vast personal wealth that prosecutors have leaned on to argue he is a flight risk.

Six months into the ongoing armed conflict between the United States and Iran, Washington has launched what it calls the most aggressive financial offensive in modern history against Tehran, a move that has immediately drawn a firm pushback from Beijing, one of Iran’s key economic partners.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the controversial new sanctions package, dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast”, during a public address on Monday. Framing the measure as an “economic D-Day” aimed at neutralizing the Iranian threat once and for all, Bessent warned that any global bank or business entity that maintains financial ties with Iran would face collective isolation alongside Tehran. He emphasized that the new measures go far beyond the already extensive U.S. sanctions regime that has been in place, noting that Treasury investigators had mapped out every hidden financial channel, intermediary and smuggling network Iran uses to evade restrictions and sell crude oil. The new package blacklists nearly 60 entities, individuals and maritime vessels linked to these operations. While Bessent declined to single out specific countries for targeted criticism, he made clear that no entity, including Chinese financial institutions, is beyond the reach of U.S. penalties. He added that President Donald Trump will imminently hold calls with global heads of state to formally request they cut all economic interactions with the Iranian government.

The announcement comes ahead of a widely anticipated high-stakes meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping scheduled for next month. China, which remains the largest purchaser of Iranian crude oil even after trade volumes declined amid the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, has swiftly rejected the new measures. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated Monday that all economic cooperation between Beijing and Tehran is fully compliant with international law, and the country will not tolerate external interference in this legitimate partnership. “China firmly opposes these illegal unilateral sanctions, and will take all necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of our entities,” Lin stated.

U.S. policymakers are already bracing for potential retaliation from China, which controls the vast majority of global processing capacity for rare earths and other critical minerals—inputs that are indispensable for the production of a wide range of high-tech products globally. Beijing has previously used rare earth export restrictions as a leverage tool during past trade negotiations with Washington, and analysts do not rule out a similar move in response to the latest sanctions.

Tehran has also responded with defiance to the new measures. Iranian Economy Minister Ali Madanizadeh said the country has been anticipating the expanded U.S. restrictions for months and has already put in place a comprehensive two-year contingency plan to manage the economic fallout. He called the new sanctions another doomed venture for Washington that will end in defeat for the U.S. “We are fully prepared, and we have our own tools to navigate this challenge. We have been waiting for these measures for a long time,” Madanizadeh told Iranian state television.

The latest escalation comes as diplomatic efforts to resolve the six-month conflict have stalled, and a 60-day temporary ceasefire expired last week without any breakthrough toward a permanent peace deal. The ongoing conflict has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets: Iran effectively blocked most commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically critical chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil shipments pass, while the U.S. has also implemented its own naval blockade limiting Iranian exports. These combined disruptions have driven sharp increases in global oil prices over the past six months.

Even before the official responses from Beijing and Tehran, independent analysts have expressed widespread skepticism that the new sanctions will achieve Washington’s stated goals. David Oxley, chief climate and commodities economist at Capital Economics, told the BBC that the direct impact on Iran’s total energy revenue is likely to be far more limited than the U.S. claims. Oxley noted that roughly 90 percent of Iran’s current oil exports go to China, a country that has never recognized U.S. unilateral sanctions and has shown little willingness to back down to U.S. pressure in the past. “We suspect that the new package will have only a limited direct impact on Iranian energy flows in the short term,” Oxley said.

Ali Vaez, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group, echoed this assessment. Vaez explained that China has long viewed U.S. unilateral sanctions as illegitimate under international law, and only complies with multilateral sanctions approved through formal international institutions. While neighboring countries including Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq are eager to maintain positive relations with Washington, Vaez noted that these nations simply cannot afford to completely sever economic ties with Iran, a key trading partner and neighbor. He added that broad economic pressure campaigns against the Iranian government have consistently failed in the past, because the regime is willing to absorb significant economic pain and shift the bulk of the hardship onto ordinary Iranian citizens.

Beyond China, other major Iranian trade partners including India and Russia have yet to issue formal responses to the U.S. announcement as of Monday.