Simply sign up to the Big Tech myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
Apple has suffered a significant defeat after the EU’s top court ruled that the iPhone maker must pay €13bn in back taxes, overturning an earlier decision in the Big Tech group’s favour.
The ruling relates to a 2016 case when the EU’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager said that Ireland had given the company an illegal sweetheart deal, amounting to a tax rate of less than 1 per cent.
The European Court of Justice said on Tuesday its ruling “confirms the European Commission’s 2016 decision: Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is required to recover”.
Advertisement
A lower court had in 2020 quashed the commission’s order and the ECJ’s decision to overturn that ruling was unexpectedly decisive.
Apple chief executive Tim Cook has previously dismissed the commission’s position as “total political crap”. On Tuesday the company said the EU was “trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the US”.
The case has been watched carefully across the bloc as a watershed moment over Big Tech’s tax affairs in Europe.
The office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, pictured here, sued a crypto scam company known as SpireBit and seized its assets. The proceeds have now been handed back to victims of the scheme.
Charles Krupa/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Advertisement
Charles Krupa/AP
Aleksey Madan never thought the day would come.
This week he received a $140,000 check in the mail from Massachusetts officials. That was the full amount Madan had lost after falling for a get-rich-quick crypto scam.
“How would you feel if all your money was stolen and you never expected to get it back, then you did?” said Madan, 69. “It feels amazing. I’m overjoyed. And also in shock.”
Advertisement
Those funds were among the hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency Massachusetts authorities seized from a fraudulent operation that targeted Russian-speaking seniors online and, in some cases, stole their life savings.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office began investigating the company, known as SpireBit, followed an NPR investigation last year detailing the stories of two victims who were lured into an investment scheme, only to realize it was a sham after they transferred large quantities of money into SpireBit’s cryptocurrency wallets.
SpireBit drew victims into its ruse by using ads on social media promising lucrative investment returns. SpireBit took out ads on Facebook and Instagram that falsely portrayed Elon Musk as endorsing the company through a Russian voice-over.
But NPR could find no trace of a real investment company: The people listed as the company’s executives turned out to be just stock photos and fake LinkedIn profiles. A supposed London address for SpireBit turned out to be a kitchenware business. When victims tried to withdraw their money, the company sent them forged bank documents. After NPR’s reporting, financial regulators in the United Kingdom issued a public warning about SpireBit, classifying it as an operation run by “fraudsters.”
When NPR tried to reach out to SpireBit for comment last year, it responded through the Telegram messaging app by stating that crypto trading is volatile, and saying “the activities of our company are regulated according to the legislation of the country in which the head office of the company is located.” Now, that account has been deleted.
Advertisement
NPR’s investigation caught the attention of Massachusetts authorities, who in December sued SpireBit under its incorporated entity known as SBT Investments.
Investigators posed as a SpireBit customer and were able to pinpoint crypto wallets used by SpireBit. In a judgment issued in May, state officials won a court order that froze the company’s assets on the trading platform Binance.
While the full extent of SpireBit’s operation remains unknown, the company’s tactics are part of a proliferating type of online fraud known as pig butchering. The name comes from the process of gaining someone’s trust and building a friendship with them over the course of weeks or months — fattening up the pig before the kill, which in this case means stealing a large sum of money.
According to the FBI, crypto scammers stole more than $5.6 billion from Americans online last year.
According to the May court order, investigators in Massachusetts were able to seize a total of $269,000 from SpireBit’s crypto wallet, most of which is being distributed to four victims in the state.
Advertisement
Another SpireBit victim profiled by NPR, Naum Lantsman, 75, of Los Angeles, lost his life savings of $340,000 that he earned over decades as a small business owner. His family reported the theft to the California Attorney General’s Office, but a formal investigation was never initiated.
Officials from the Massachusetts and California attorney general offices did not return interview requests.
Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris are starkly different presidential candidates. So why are so many voters — roughly 1 in 6 — still unsure of their choice?
We asked voters who have not yet made up their minds — 830 of them across five battleground states and Ohio — to name their biggest worries with both candidates.
Here is what they said.
Concern about Trump
“He’s made people comfortable with being racist and set the country back 50 years with racism.”
Concern about Harris
Advertisement
“She’s a liar and it feels like she hasn’t done anything she said she was going to do.”
Black woman, 50s, Arizona
Concern about Trump
“Don’t like his rhetoric, how he speaks to people.”
Concern about Harris
“Incompetent, no experience in foreign policy or running the government; also has no opinions except on abortion.”
Advertisement
White woman, 70s, Wisconsin
Concern about Trump
“Too extreme.”
Concern about Harris
“I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”
Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona
Advertisement
Concern about Trump
“Having the right to control my own body.”
Concern about Harris
“Immigration and inflation.”
Black woman, 20s, Georgia
Concern about Trump
“Arrogance.”
Advertisement
Concern about Harris
“She’s a woman and not sure if a woman should be running.”
White woman, 50s, Arizona
Concern about Trump
“Has felonies on his record.”
Concern about Harris
Advertisement
“Don’t know much about her policy.”
Black man, 50s, Georgia
Concern about Trump
“I don’t trust him.”
Concern about Harris
“I don’t trust her.”
Advertisement
Black woman, 60s, Georgia
Until President Joe Biden dropped his bid for re-election, a large share of voters were unhappy with their choices for president.
Today, the electorate as a whole is happier, but the uncommitted voters are still not, according to recent polling by The New York Times and Siena College in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
They trust neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris. They question the candidates’ honesty and ethics.
Advertisement
Based on New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Respondents who said they didn’t know or who declined to say are not included.
These voters are younger than the electorate overall, less educated and have a lower income. They are much more likely than voters overall to be Black or Latino, and a little more likely to be men.
Some of these voters may just stay home, but a meaningful portion of them will probably vote. And in a close election, they could be the deciding factor.
Advertisement
In trying to understand what is holding them back from committing, we asked voters to tell us in their own words about their worries. Their phrases were telling: “being a bully,” “she’s an idiot.”
In many ways, their words suggest that voters know, and perhaps have become inured to, Donald Trump’s slash-and-burn campaign style and personality.
But with Kamala Harris, who was plunged into the race only in July, their fears are wider ranging — encompassing both character and the issues, like the economy. And for some voters, the historic nature of her candidacy presents not progress but a drawback.
Voters are concerned about one thing when it comes to Trump: his character.
They said he is arrogant or erratic and talks too much. They talked about his age or criminal trials. The words boiled down to concerns about the former president’s personality and honesty.
Advertisement
Even voters who said they were leaning toward Trump mentioned concerns about chaos and dysfunction.
A small but notable share were also concerned, specifically, about his ability to carry out and complete the tasks of president, mentioning his age and mental capacity.
Concern about Trump
“Angered easily.”
White man, 40s, Michigan
Advertisement
Concern about Trump
“Being a bully towards other nations.”
White man, 60s, Georgia
Concern about Trump
“He is erratic, not very well-spoken and lies.”
Advertisement
White man, 40s, North Carolina
Concern about Trump
“Him staying off the internet.”
White man, 30s, Arizona
Concern about Trump
“Being presidential, sense of decorum, way he communicates.”
Advertisement
Man, 60s, Michigan
Concern about Trump
“Does not know when to shut up.”
White man, 20s, North Carolina
Advertisement
Concern about Trump
“His age.”
White woman, 20s, Wisconsin
At the same time, even though Trump has crossed all kinds of red lines during his campaign, voters used comparatively mild language in describing their doubts about him. Words like “a bit” and “a little” crept in frequently.
Concern about Trump
“Little power hungry.”
Advertisement
White woman, 30s, Arizona
Concern about Trump
“His authoritative tendencies.”
White man, 30s, North Carolina
Advertisement
Concern about Trump
“Probably his rhetoric, maybe, and how he presents himself. And the debate was kind of rough.”
Woman, 40s, Michigan
Concern about Trump
“Bit decisive at times. He doesn’t always say the right things.”
Advertisement
White man, 20s, Georgia
Concern about Trump
“I wish he could be a little more presidential.”
White woman, 70s, Arizona
Concern about Trump
“He might become too emotional when making decisions.”
Advertisement
Nonwhite man, 30s, North Carolina
Concerns about Harris are more varied.
For Kamala Harris, voters’ anxieties were broader and more complicated. Although qualms about her personality came up less often than with Trump, trustworthiness and honesty were still big question marks for many voters.
So was her ability to handle the economy. Voters specifically mentioned costs and inflation, a persistent concern among undecided and not fully decided voters over the last few months.
Advertisement
Concern about Harris
“She will make the economy worse than it is.”
Black man, 20s, Georgia
Concern about Harris
“That she’s like every other politician, that she is not going to actually do anything to help us.”
Black woman, 30s, Ohio
Concern about Harris
“Bring down the price of groceries and housing.”
Advertisement
Black woman, 60s, Georgia
Concern about Harris
“How she would handle the economy.”
Hispanic woman, 20s, Georgia
Concern about Harris
“Too liberal.”
Black woman, 50s, Michigan
Advertisement
Concern about Harris
“Not following through.”
White woman, 30s, Wisconsin
Concern about Harris
“The people didn’t vote for her; she was appointed. That is not democracy.”
White man, 60s, Wisconsin
Concern about Harris
“Democrats take the African American vote for granted. Not sure her policies are going to benefit African Americans.”
Advertisement
Black man, 30s, North Carolina
They also questioned her abilities and wondered if she was ready for the job. Some voters described her with caustic language, which echoes Trump’s, who called her “mentally disabled” and “mentally impaired.”
Harris has not leaned into the historical nature of her candidacy — she would be the first woman of color to be president. For some of these voters, her background may be a challenge. Some voters used language that was outright sexist.
Concern about Harris
“That she’s not intelligent enough to be president. I think she is an idiot.”
White man, 70s, Arizona
Advertisement
Concern about Harris
“I don’t think she’s got it all together.”
White woman, 70s, Arizona
Concern about Harris
“Overall untrustworthy.”
Black man, 40s, North Carolina
Concern about Harris
“I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”
Advertisement
Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona
Concern about Harris
“She’s a woman. I’m not sure she can get the job done. People probably won’t listen to her.”
White woman, 50s, Ohio
Concern about Harris
“She’s a lady.”
Black woman, 60s, Wisconsin
Advertisement
Sources and methodology
Selected responses from New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Undecided and persuadable voters were voters in the survey who either did not pick a presidential candidate after being asked multiple questions about their vote choice or voters who ultimately did pick a candidate but said they were only “probably” but not “definitely” going to support that candidate.
Open-ended responses to the “biggest concern” question were coded into categories using a trained coder and validated with a second reviewer. The primary coder reviewed a sampling of responses and then created an initial coding schema. Categories were adjusted based on size and coherence throughout the process. Where there was disagreement between coders, proposed codes were reviewed, discussed and compared with similar examples in other surveys. To help ensure consistency, responses that exactly matched previous responses in prior surveys were automatically coded to the same category, but were still reviewed for accuracy.
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is author of ‘Command’ and the Substack ‘Comment is Freed’
There is a famous joke about a frog on the banks of the River Jordan. A scorpion asks for a ride across. “Why would I do that?” says the frog. “If you get on my back you will sting me.” The scorpion explains that he, too, would drown. Reassured the frog carries him, until halfway, the scorpion stings the frog. “Why?” cries the frog, “Now we are both doomed.” Because, comes back the reply, “this is the Middle East.”
It is now a year since Hamas triggered this latest cycle of violence. For Israel, the stakes have grown as its focus has shifted from Gaza to Lebanon. Last week, it inflicted a major blow by killing Hizbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah made his name in 2006 when the Iran-backed paramilitary group fought Israel to a standstill. His success in exposing Israel’s vulnerabilities made him a hero around the Arab world, with Sunni as well as Shia, assuring him an exalted place among Iran’s partners and strengthening his position as the vital powerbroker in Lebanese politics.
Advertisement
Yet Nasrallah got caught in the tensions between his Iranian and Lebanese roles. He was held responsible by many for Lebanon’s chronic economic misery and political instability while Hizbollah’s position as the most prominent member of the Iranian-orchestrated “axis of resistance” took precedence.
After October 7, Hizbollah, still acting as part of the axis, opened up a second front as Israel began its invasion of Gaza. It was comparatively restrained, although engagements were heavy enough to require civilians to evacuate in large numbers on both sides of the border. It did enough to show solidarity with Hamas but not so much as to trigger a wider war. Israel therefore could concentrate on Hamas and leave Hizbollah until later.
As a result, Hizbollah failed to maximise its military impact at a time when Israel was most exposed, while doing enough to ensure that Israel would turn on them once they got the chance. This new stage in the war came with the elimination of much of the top layers of command, beginning with the notorious pager detonations and culminating in the assassination of Nasrallah himself. Now the IDF has embarked on what it has described as a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon, to destroy as much as possible of Hizbollah’s military infrastructure.
All this put Iran in a quandary as Israel struck blows against its proxies while it stayed on the sidelines. Back in April, Tehran responded to several senior commanders being killed in an attack on its embassy compound in Damascus by sending large numbers of drones and missiles towards Israel. But most either failed to reach their targets or were shot down. Even after more provocations, including the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was in Tehran, it did nothing.
Hizbollah is supposedly part of Iran’s deterrent threat yet has been methodically dismantled by Israel. Nasrallah’s assassination brought the issue to a head. The recently elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, aware of the parlous state of Iran’s economy and widespread popular discontent, sought continuing restraint. But he is subordinate to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, backed by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. For them more restraint was humiliating. And so on Tuesday night, 181 ballistic missiles hurtled towards targets in Israel. Most were caught by air defences, though some got through, including to airfields. After the strike Iran indicated that it wanted no further escalation.
Advertisement
In Israel there was soon talk of the opportunity this creates for a decisive retaliatory attack that could even complete the process of taking apart the whole Iranian axis by going for Iran itself. This has led to speculation about possible targets. If Israel opts for military installations, Iran will be faced with the same dilemma as before — to respond with missiles or take the hit. But Israel has more ambitious options. US President Joe Biden has urged it to avoid nuclear installations but acknowledged that it might attack oil facilities. If it does, Khamenei has promised Iran’s next strikes might target Israel’s energy infrastructure. It could also generate an international oil crisis by closing the Straits of Hormuz.
Nor is Israel in a position to engineer regime change in Tehran. If this happens it will be because of the actions of ordinary Iranians. And while Israel has been able to demonstrate its military superiority, and has severely weakened its regional adversaries, Iran still has a large stock of ballistic missiles. Nor does Israel have unlimited air defence missiles, particularly the long-range Arrow that has played a critical role in thwarting Iran’s previous attacks.
The Lebanese caretaker government, coping with a humanitarian crisis, is desperate for an end to hostilities, but Hizbollah is still firing rockets across the border and inflicting casualties on the IDF as they battle for control of southern Lebanon. Residents cannot get back to their homes. A ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza remains elusive.
The balance of power within Tehran is not conducive to a full strategic reappraisal. Israel, for its part, may feel that while there are targets to hit, it must carry on striking them. Yet it remains unclear how it intends to turn its military success to its political advantage and agree arrangements that might actually bring some long-term stability to its borders. It is not that it is impossible to imagine how this might be done — but this is still the Middle East.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25439572/VRG_TEC_Textless.jpg "Charter will offer Peacock for free with some cable subscriptions next year")
