Latest news with #U.S.C
MTV Lebanon
2 days ago
- Politics
- MTV Lebanon
Trump Revokes Sanctions on Syria, Citing Leadership Change and Positive Developments
In a sweeping and unexpected move, former President Donald J. Trump has issued an executive order formally revoking a series of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The order, released from the White House on June 30, 2025, outlines a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Damascus, citing what Trump describes as a 'fundamental change' in Syria's leadership and political direction. The decision references recent actions taken by the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa and aims to support a Syria that is, in Trump's words, 'stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors.' The full executive order follows below: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-175) (Syria Accountability Act), the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-182, title III) (CBW Act), the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, as amended (22 U.S.C. 8791 note) (Caesar Act), the Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-50, div. P), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Background. The United States is committed to supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors. A united Syria that does not offer a safe haven for terrorist organizations and ensures the security of its religious and ethnic minorities will support regional security and prosperity. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury have taken initial steps towards this goal through the issuance on May 23, 2025, of General License 25 and a waiver of sanctions under the Caesar Act. Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to recognize that circumstances that gave rise to the actions taken in the Executive Orders described in section 3(a) of this order, related to the policies and actions of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad, have been transformed by developments over the past 6 months, including the positive actions taken by the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. This order supports United States national security and foreign policy goals by directing additional actions, including the removal of sanctions on Syria, the issuance of waivers that permit the relaxation of export controls and other restrictions on Syria, and other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as well as by other executive departments and agencies (agencies) of the United States, without providing relief to ISIS or other terrorist organizations, human rights abusers, those linked to chemical weapons or proliferation-related activities, or other persons that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the United States, Syria, and its neighbors. Sec. 3. Revocation of Syria Sanctions. (a) Effective July 1, 2025, I hereby terminate the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria), and revoke that order, as well as Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria), Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria), and Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria). (b) Pursuant to section 202(a) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)), termination of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399, Executive Order 13460, Executive Order 13572, Executive Order 13573, and Executive Order 13582 shall not affect any action taken or pending proceeding not finally concluded or determined as of July 1, 2025, any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to July 1, 2025, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to July 1, 2025. Sec. 4. Accountability for the Former Regime of Bashar al‑Assad. I find that additional steps must be taken to ensure meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes, human rights violations and abuses, and the proliferation of narcotics trafficking networks in and in relation to Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad and by those associated with it. Perpetrators of such actions threaten to undermine peace, security, and stability in the region, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (a) I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019 (Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Syria), as amended in and relied on for additional steps taken in Executive Order 14142 of January 15, 2025 (Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Situation in Syria), to deal with that threat, and accordingly further amend Executive Order 13894 by: (i) striking section 1(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: "Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: (i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: (A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, any of the following in or in relation to Syria: (1) actions or policies that further threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial integrity of Syria; or (2) the commission of serious human rights abuse; (B) to be a former government official of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad or a person who acted for or on behalf of such an official; (C) to have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the illicit production and international illicit proliferation of captagon; (D) to be responsible for or complicit in, to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or to be responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, instances in which a United States national ((i) as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) or 8 U.S.C. 1408, or (ii) a lawful permanent resident with significant ties to the United States) went missing in Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; (E) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: (1) the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; (2) any activity described in subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section; or (3) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; (F) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (G) to be an adult family member of a person designated under subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section."; and (ii) striking section 2(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: "Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials of the United States Government as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign person any of the sanctions described in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, upon determining that the person, on or after the date of this order: (i) is responsible for or complicit in, has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, or financed the obstruction, disruption, or prevention of efforts to promote a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors, including: (A) the convening and conduct of a credible and inclusive Syrian-led constitutional process; (B) the preparation for and conduct of supervised elections, pursuant to the new constitution, that are free and fair and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability; or (C) the development of a Syrian government that is representative and reflects the will of the Syrian people; (ii) is an adult family member of a person designated under subsection (a)(i) of this section; or (iii) is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, the expropriation of property, including real property, for personal gain or political purposes in Syria." (b) I additionally amend Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012 (Blocking the Property and Suspending Entry into the United States of Certain Persons With Respect to Grave Human Rights Abuses by the Governments of Iran and Syria Via Information Technology), by removing the following text from the preamble: "Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders" and replacing it with: "Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, and relied upon for additional steps and further amended in subsequent Executive Orders." Sec. 5. Caesar Act. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall examine whether the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) of the Caesar Act have been met, and on the basis of that examination may, pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of March 31, 2020 (Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020), suspend in whole or in part the imposition of sanctions otherwise required under the Caesar Act. If the Secretary of State determines to suspend in whole or in part the imposition of such sanctions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall provide the briefing to the appropriate congressional committees required by section 7431(b) of the Caesar Act within 30 days of such determination. Further, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall continue to review the situation in Syria, and if the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines that the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) are no longer met, the Secretary of State shall reimpose sanctions. Sec. 6. Syria Accountability Act. I hereby determine pursuant to section 5(b) of the Syria Accountability Act that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the application of subsection (a)(1), with respect to items on the Commerce Control List (supp. No. 1 to 15 C.F.R. part 774) only, and subsection (a)(2)(A) of the Syria Accountability Act only. The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the report required under section 5(b) of that Act. Sec. 7. CBW Act. (a) Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) of the CBW Act, I hereby determine and certify that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. Accordingly, I hereby waive the following sanctions imposed on Syria for the prior use of chemical weapons under the former regime of Bashar al-Assad: (i) the restriction on foreign assistance under section 307(a)(1) of the CBW Act; (ii) the restriction on United States Government credit, credit guarantees, or other financial assistance under section 307(a)(4) of the CBW Act; (iii) the restrictions on the export of national security-sensitive goods and technology under section 307(a)(5) of the CBW Act and on all other goods and technology under section 307(b)(2)(C) of the CBW Act; and (iv) the restriction on United States banks from making any loan or providing any credit to the Government of Syria under section 307(b)(2)(B) of the CBW Act. (b) The Secretary of State shall transmit this waiver determination and report as required by sections 307(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the CBW Act to the appropriate congressional committees. This waiver shall be effective 20 days after it has been so transmitted. Sec. 8. Counterterrorism Designations. (a) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham and other aliases, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under 50 U.S.C. 1702 and Executive Order 13224, as well as the designation of Abu Muhammad al Jawlani, commonly known as Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. (b) The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate action to review the designation of Syria as a State Sponsor of Terrorism consistent with section 1754(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 50 U.S.C. 4813(c)), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (Public Law 90-629, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2780), and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2371). Sec. 9. United Nations. The Secretary of State shall take appropriate steps to advance United States policy objectives at the United Nations to support a Syria that is stable and at peace and to support Syrian efforts to counter terrorism and comply with its responsibilities and obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. The Secretary of State is further directed to explore avenues at the United Nations to provide sanctions relief in support of these objectives. Sec. 10. Implementation. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, are hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within their respective agencies. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, is authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President in section 5 of the Syria Accountability Act and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order, consistent with applicable law. Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of State. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, June 30, 2025.
USA Today
7 days ago
- USA Today
Boulder, Colorado, attack suspect charged with federal hate crimes
A man accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, who gathered in support of Israeli hostages in Gaza, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 12 hate crime counts, prosecutors said on June 25. The indictment comes after a federal judge ruled last week that there was enough evidence to move forward with a hate crime case against Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45. The indictment, which was unsealed on June 25, accuses Soliman of attacking members of "Run for Their Lives," a group advocating for the release of the hostages held in Gaza since the assault on Israel by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. The incident occurred on June 1 as the group gathered at a pedestrian mall in downtown Boulder for a weekly demonstration. Authorities said Soliman targeted the group with Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower, injuring more than a dozen people. The 12 hate crime counts against Soliman include nine counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 249, willfully causing injury to a person because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado. It also includes three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), using fire or an explosive to commit a felony. Soliman had previously been charged with a federal hate crime offense, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. State prosecutors have also charged Soliman with 118 criminal counts, including attempted murder and other offenses. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if he's found guilty of the federal hate crime charges against him. Boulder attack: How a father of 5 morphed into a terror suspect with Boulder's Jews in his crosshairs What happened in the attack in Boulder? Boulder dispatch received several calls to the outdoor Pearl Street Mall at around 1:26 p.m. local time on June 1, police said. Initial reports indicated that there was a man with a weapon, and people were being set on fire near the Boulder County Courthouse. Soliman had carried a backpack weed sprayer that contained a flammable liquid and a black plastic container that held at least 18 glass bottles and jars filled with flammable liquid, several of which had "red rags stuffed through the top to act as wicks," according to the indictment. The indictment states that he then allegedly approached the Run for Their Lives group and threw two ignited Molotov cocktails while shouting "Free Palestine!" Authorities said 15 people between the ages of 25 and 88 were injured with burns. Soliman was taken into custody following the attack. Authorities closed off several blocks in downtown Boulder surrounding the county courthouse as multiple teams processed the crime scene and investigated a subject vehicle. The indictment said a handwritten document was recovered from the vehicle driven by Soliman. According to the indictment, the document stated, "Zionism is our enemies untill [sic] Jerusalem is liberated and they are expelled from our land," and also described Israel as a "cancer entity." The indictment further alleges that Soliman told law enforcement during an interview that he viewed "anyone supporting the exist [sic] of Israel on our land" to be "Zionist." He allegedly said he "decide[d] to take [his] revenge from these people' and "search[ed] the internet looking for any Zionist event," according to the indictment. Soliman also said he learned of the Run for Their Lives group through online searches for 'Zionist' events and that he was able to identify the group after seeing the flags and signs they carried outside the county courthouse, the indictment states. The Associated Press reported that during the June 18 hearing, Soliman's defense attorney had urged the judge not to allow the hate crime case to proceed because the alleged attack was not a hate crime. The attorney said the attack was motivated by opposition to the political movement of Zionism, according to AP. One year later: Anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hate incidents spike since Oct. 7 attacks Who is Mohamed Soliman? Soliman entered the United States in August 2022 on a B-2 tourist visa that expired over two years ago, according to Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. An affidavit said he was born in Egypt and lived in Kuwait for 17 years before moving to Colorado three years ago. Soliman, who has a valid Colorado driver's license and no prior criminal history, told investigators that he planned the attack for a year and "was waiting until after his daughter graduated to conduct the attack," according to the affidavit. He hoped to use a gun and had taken shooting classes, but his immigration status prevented him from purchasing a firearm, the affidavit said. Uber confirmed that Soliman had worked as a driver starting in spring 2023, though the company did not specify whether he worked driving passengers or for Uber Eats, or both. The company terminated Soliman's account following the attack but noted that he had "no concerning feedback while driving on the Uber platform." According to the affidavit, he lived at a home in Colorado Springs with his wife and five children. Soliman's wife and children, ages 4 to 18, were detained by immigration agents on June 3, and the Trump administration said they would be subjected to expedited deportation. But a federal judge in Denver blocked the move on June 4, saying the family is entitled to due process. By then, the family had been transferred to a detention facility in Texas, where the case is expected to be heard. Contributing: Susan Miller, Jorge L. Ortiz, Christopher Cann, Michael Loria, and Phaedra Trethan, USA TODAY
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
US universities win case striking down agency's 15% research cost cap
Brown and Cornell universities, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several other US schools won a federal court order striking down a National Science Foundation cap on indirect cost rates for government-funded research. Judge Indira Talwani struck down the cap on Friday, finding it 'arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law,' granting summary judgment to the suing schools plus the Association of American Universities, and denying that relief to the government. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts judge also denied the schools' bid for injunctive relief, stating it was now moot. The ruling is the third successful university challenge this year to federal agencies slashing research funding, following court victories against the National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy. A fourth case against the Department of Defense is pending. 'Although the 15 per cent Indirect Cost Rate does not affect existing or continuing grant awards, Plaintiffs and member institutions collectively have thousands of proposals pending before NSF, which they submitted in reliance on their negotiated indirect cost rates,' Talwani said. Those proposals are worth 'tens of millions of dollars' according to the order. The cap will prompt institutions to lay off specialized researchers, cause staff to leave for other institutions, and immediately inhibit planning, hiring, and operations, she said, adding that schools will be forced to cut 'graduate student and trainee positions, damaging critical talent pipelines.' Talwani's ruling follows the government's May 16 decision to stay the implementation of a research costs cap policy, and the court's subsequent decision to cancel a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion. The schools and AAU, in their lawsuit filed May 5 called the NSF policy, which had imposed a categorical 15 per cent cap on all new grant and cooperative agreements to universities 'clearly unlawful.' A Tailored Approach Congress authorized the use of predetermined fixed-percentage rates for payment of reimbursable indirect costs attributable to research agreements with education institutions, at 41 U.S.C. § 4708, the complaint said. 'And with Congress having preserved a tailored approach to indirect cost rates since 1965, it beggars belief to suggest that Congress—without saying a word—impliedly authorized NSF to enact a sweeping, one-size-fits-all command that will upend research at America's universities,' the plaintiffs said. The rate cap also violates regulations promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that funding recipients can recover the actual costs of conducting research the government selected them to undertake, the complaint said. The plaintiffs on May 8 moved for their injunction, asserting the policy would cause irreparable damage to universities' educational and research missions, resulting in 'critical research programs being disrupted or stopped altogether.' The government's May 27 opposition said the cap policy is allowed under National Science Foundation Act, which authorizes the NSF to use its discretion to spend federal money the way it sees fit to support its mission to promote scientific research. The US also said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide the case because because the plaintiffs lack standing. No plaintiff has alleged that the agency altered terms of an existing grant by applying a 15 per cent rate, the government said. Thirteen schools in all had joined in the suit including the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, the universities of of Chicago, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and Princeton University. Jenner & Block LLP and Clement & Murphy PLLC represent the plaintiffs. The case is Ass'n of Am. Universities v. Nat'l Sci. Found., D. Mass., 1:25-cv-11231, 6/20/25.
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What level of immigration enforcement will Democrats actually accept?
Last week, the streets of Los Angeles burned over immigration enforcement. The incendiary exchange between California's political class and federal immigration authorities unfolded as America watched. But I have just one question for my friends on the political left: What level of immigration law enforcement is actually acceptable? This isn't a rhetorical jab. It's a genuine inquiry into where the line resides. At what point does enforcing duly enacted federal law become illegitimate in the eyes of those who advocate for sanctuary city policies and decry any interior enforcement as a moral outrage? Let's be clear about what federal law permits. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers don't just have the right to operate in all 50 states; they have a legal obligation to do so. More: ICE says nearly 200 immigrants arrested in Nashville during recent operations The Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically in section 8 U.S.C. § 1357, grants federal immigration officers the authority to interrogate and arrest non-citizens without a warrant if they have 'reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.' This isn't some obscure, rarely used statute. It's the bedrock of federal immigration enforcement. The "probable cause" standard here is consistent with what we expect from other law enforcement agencies. We can and should demand that ICE agents meet this standard, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. Consider the typical scenario that often gets labeled a "raid." It's not, as often portrayed, a random sweep of a neighborhood. These are enforcement actions targeted at specific employers based on evidence. In fact, worksite enforcement is a regular part of ICE operations, and it isn't limited to Democrat-dominated states. The event that started the conflagration in Los Angeles on June 6 was a basic law enforcement engagement at an apparel manufacturing business. This brings us back to the central question. If federal agents have established probable cause that a business is a hub of illegal employment, at what point in that process is it acceptable for protestors to throw rocks at officers? When is the appropriate time to set a self-driving Waymo vehicle ablaze? Is there a particular brand of sneakers that's fair game for looting when you're upset about immigration enforcement? All this boorish behavior simply demonstrates the need for even more law enforcement. The performative outrage from politicians like Gov. Gavin Newsom in his exchanges with ICE Director Tom Homan is a distraction. The issue isn't about tough talk; it's about the consistent and safe application of the law. States cannot create zones where federal law is null and void, no matter what they label them. More: Inside the volunteer group patrolling Nashville to look for ICE activity The Supreme Court has affirmed states do not have to assist in federal enforcement. They also cannot actively obstruct it. If Democrats in California and elsewhere fundamentally oppose the current immigration laws, the path to changing them runs through Washington, D.C., not through angry mobs on the streets of Los Angeles. Win a presidential election, hold majorities in Congress, and you can rewrite the nation's immigration statutes. Just don't look at the polling. As it turns out, Americans aren't into lawlessness. If Democratic leaders can't articulate a vision for how federal immigration laws can be consistently and peacefully enforced, then their position isn't that different from the masked protestor waving a foreign flag on the hood of a burning car. They might be wearing suits in positions of power, but their contempt for the rule of law is exactly the same. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Democrats at ICE protests show contempt for federal law | Opinion
India.com
09-06-2025
- Business
- India.com
Authorities Crack Down on Boss IPTV and Affiliate Illegal IPTV Services: Users Warned of Criminal Charges and Deportation Risks
New Delhi: A major international crackdown has uncovered an extensive illegal Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) operation streaming pirated content across various digital platforms. Operating under brand names such as Boss IPTV, Guru IPTV, Tashan IPTV, Brampton IPTV, Vois IPTV, Indian IPTV, Punjabi IPTV, Edmonton IPTV, Boss Entertainment IPTV, and UltrastreamTV, this unlawful network has been implicated in severe copyright infringement and data privacy violations, According to police, these services have been illegally broadcasting premium Indian and international content including channels and programs from Star, Zee Network, Colors, Sony, Sun Network, ETV, Aha, Sonyliv, as well as global streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, and international sports leagues—without securing proper licenses or permissions. Delivered through Android/Linux-based set-top boxes or via apps on smart devices, the illegal services were aggressively promoted online via social media, websites, and blogs, offering premium content at prices significantly below legal services. Government investigations reveal that these platforms do not pay content owners or platforms for rights, deeply harming the entertainment industry. The global South Asian broadcast sector loses an estimated $200–$300 million annually due to IPTV piracy, affecting licensed platforms like YuppTV,. In addition to economic damage, there are serious security concerns: pirated IPTV services often harvest user data—such as credit card information—and are linked to phishing scams, tax evasion, and potentially funding other illegal operations including drug trade and terrorism. Previously in 2021, following a complaint filed by YuppTV, the Faridabad Cyber Crime Branch conducted a raid on Boss IPTV operations in India, leading to the arrest of six individuals connected to the illegal piracy network. YuppTV has further filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court, represented by Goldstein Law Group, LLC ('GLP') targeting Boss IPTV and its affiliated entities. The complaint highlights severe violations of U.S. federal copyright law under 18 U.S.C. § 2319. According to GLP: 'Any subscriber using illegal IPTV pirate services… may be linked to copyright infringement, a crime under U.S. federal law. Convictions may result in felony charges, and non-citizens convicted of such offenses may be subject to deportation under U.S. law.' Recently, another similar case was reported by the Gandhinagar Cyber Crime Unit in Gujarat which arrested Mohammed Murtuza Ali, suspected to be the key figure behind another massive illegal IPTV operation known as Bos IPTV. Operating from Jalandhar, Punjab, Ali allegedly ran a piracy network that drew over five million subscribers and generated close to ₹700 crore (US $84 million) in annual revenue. Legal authorities suggest that to avoid the possibility of arrest and other penalties, all current users accessing pirated services immediately discontinue use and migrate to legal, licensed platforms such as YuppTV. Visit to obtain legal, authorized access to Indian content. For more information about the ongoing litigation and enforcement actions against Boss IPTV and related services, please visit: [Insert Litigation Info Link]
