Connect with us

Business

U.S. to launch anti-scam center task force as world targets Southeast Asia cybercrime

Published

on



Southeast Asian governments and businesses have been rocked by a renewed focus on the region’s notorious scam centers, compounds where workers—often themselves victims of human trafficking—try to defraud individuals in wealthier economies like Singapore and Hong Kong.

In mid-October, the U.S. and UK slapped sanctions targeting individuals and entities within the Cambodia-based Prince Group, which officials accused of being linked to transnational cybercrime. Nearby Singapore later seized just over $115 million worth of assets tied to the Group. (The Prince Group this week said it “categorically rejects” any allegations that it or its chairman Chen Zhi engaged in any unlawful activity.)

South Korea also launched emergency measures last month to rescue its kidnapped nationals in Cambodia after one Korean tourist was found murdered near a scam compound. And on Oct. 22, Thailand Deputy Finance Minister Vorapak Tanyawong resigned after just a month on the job following accusations linking him to Cambodian scam center networks. (Vorapak has denied the allegations)

On Thursday, the U.S. announced that it will start a new “Scam Center Strike Force” to target cybercriminals based in Southeast Asia, with U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro dubbing it “a national security problem and a homeland security problem.”

It’s a dramatic escalation for an issue that’s remained in the headlines since the begining of the year, when a Chinese actor, Wang Xing, went missing in Thailand and brought to a scam center in neighboring Myanmar.

Hundreds of thousands more people remain trapped in Southeast Asian scam centers, according to the United Nations. Many were lured by false job ads on platforms like Facebook, says Jacob Sims, a fellow at Harvard University’s Asia Center and an expert on transnational crime and human rights in Southeast Asia.

“They get taken to these compounds that look like penal colonies, with barbed wires on the inside, guard towers facing in, and bars over the windows,” Sims adds. “They’re brought inside and told to scam people, and if they don’t, they will get beaten, tortured, abused, killed—and that becomes life for all of these people.”

These scam compounds are primarily located in three countries—Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar—and particularly in their border areas, where local governments have ceded de facto control. 

And despite escalating global efforts to dismantle them, sustainable change has proven difficult to achieve. When one scam center is taken down, another quickly mushrooms up elsewhere.

“The criminal groups are very strategic—they find areas where governance is weak, local authorities are easy to manipulate, and where corruption thrives. Those would be the perfect conditions for them to collude with local elites,” says Hammerli Sriyai, a visiting fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.

A burgeoning problem

Scam centers are now a matter of global diplomacy. Last month, on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, South Korea and Cambodia agreed to set up a dedicated task force to pursue traffickers. Separately, the U.S. and UK both seized $15 billion worth of Bitcoin from Southeast Asian scam empires. 

For one, criminal groups have spent decades building up their elite protection networks, says Sims of Harvard. Many criminal networks pivoted from gambling to scam centers when the COVID-19 pandemic paused international travel.

The ballooning number of scam complexes then began receiving protection by local elites.

“Local officials and economic interests are often complicit (with scam center operations), providing protection in exchange for kick-backs,” says Joanne Lin, a senior fellow and coordinator from the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

One example is KK Park, one of the largest scam compounds on the Myanmar-Thailand border. Spokespeople for Myanmar’s military have pointed fingers at the Karen National Union, an armed ethnic organization from the country, for jointly establishing KK Park alongside Chinese syndicates.

Scam centers have traditionally relied on trafficked people. A 2025 report by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime found that victims in Southeast Asian scam centers hailed from over 50 countries worldwide.

“The pandemic gave rise to a large, newly vulnerable population—people who used to hold stable jobs, are multilingual, urban, well-educated, younger and tech-savvy. It broadened the aperture of the type of people vulnerable to being trafficked to scam centers,” says Sims of Harvard.

But while scammers used to be mostly Chinese and Thai nationals, the workforce has now expanded to include more Burmese and Cambodian youth. Political instability, as well as Myanmar’s civil war, have eroded job prospects for the young, who now provide a steady source of labor for scam centers. 

“This shows the corrupting influence of this industry. It’s not just pockets of foreigners that are using these countries as an island for their operations—it also draws in local people,” says Mark Bo, a researcher and co-author of Scam: Inside Southeast Asia’s Cybercrime Compounds.

AI, crypto, deepfakes

Scammers are also tapping new technologies to enhance their operations. Online translation services and AI deepfakes are increasing the sophistication and believability of scams. 

Most common is the “pig butchering scam,” a long-term fraud where scammers build trust with a victim through a false friendship or romantic relationship, before enticing them with a fake investment scheme. 

“If you think you’re dating a really attractive person online, you would want to talk to them, perhaps via video chat. In that case, the deepfakes employed are really good,” Sims says.

Scammers have also tapped alternative currencies, such as cryptocurrency and other decentralized finance (DeFi) instruments like stablecoins, to aid in the money laundering process and make illicit profits harder to trace.

These currencies are an integral part of cybercrime operations, as they are poorly understood and are often pseudo-anonymous, says Kristina Amerhauser, a senior analyst from the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC).

“When you’re exchanging crypto back into fiat currency (i.e. government-issued currency, such as U.S. dollars), the “know your customer” checks performed by crypto exchanges are often limited, which makes it very attractive to criminals,” Amerhauser says.

A game of whack-a-mole

These scam centers have far-reaching impacts for Southeast Asia and beyond.

They erode public trust, drain household savings and prey especially on the elderly and less digitally literate, says Lin of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Many victims lose their life savings, which in turn weakens social stability. 

And for governments, these activities damage international reputation and strain law enforcement resources, she adds.

But the transnational nature of scam centers—coupled with rampant corruption—makes it tough for law enforcement to counter them. 

“International law frameworks are built on the back of state actors being viewed as partners—with everyone moving towards this nebulous idea of development, prosperity and freedom. But these countries don’t play by those rules,” Sims adds. “In [nations that house scam centers], the domestic rule of law is already so profoundly undermined, that the idea of upholding international law in any means other than rhetoric is quite impossible.”

And with the backing of local power brokers, enforcement becomes a game of whack-a-mole.

Even if international agencies like Interpol manage to track down and identify the perpetrators of the scam centers, it remains challenging to pin down a legitimate ‘authority’ they should work with to clamp down on them, says Yen Zhi Yi, a senior analyst from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at the Nanyang Technological University. Instead, when a center is discovered or raided, the operators quickly relocate and resume business elsewhere, Lin says.

Root causes

As international pressure mounts, crackdowns on scam centers have intensified in recent months—as in the case of KK Park, where a military-led crackdown in October resulted in the arrests of over 2,000 people.

But some experts, like Sims and Sriyai, argue that such measures are only temporary solutions. 

“Most of the observable response from the three nations has been performative and designed to move the industry into the hands of more powerful local elites or relieve international pressure—or both—so there’s no real reform,” Sims says.

Instead, they believe it is crucial to address the root causes of why people fall prey to scam operations in the first place.

Many across the globe are facing economic stagnation, job insecurity and inflation, Sriyai says, and individual countries need to fix their domestic problems to prevent citizens from being lured to scam centers.

Regional networks and intergovernmental organizations, such as ASEAN, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, also have a role to play.

“ASEAN can serve as a focal point that links Southeast Asian countries with the international community that may have technical expertise and resources to help the smaller ASEAN countries,” says Sriyai.

The coalition also provides an effective platform for negotiations with larger countries like China, where many of the scam syndicates hail from.

But ultimately, experts think individuals have to protect themselves. On this front, governments can help improve digital literacy, including teaching people what cryptocurrency and fintech platforms look like and how they function.

“Legislation and enforcement are important, but so is raising awareness and building people’s capacity to spot shady apps and know when they may be investing in a platform that is illegitimate,” says Amerhauser of GI-TOC.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.