Aggregator
Nets’ first-rounder believes Brooklyn is where he ‘needs to be’
China’s Crackdown Threatens Hong Kong’s IPO Boom And Offshore Wealth
China’s latest push to choke off capital flight is starting to hit Hong Kong right where it hurts, according to a new feature from Bloomberg.
For years, the city has served as the main offshore escape valve for mainland wealth — the place where Chinese founders, executives and wealthy families parked money, opened private bank accounts, bought property and set up family offices. Now Beijing is tightening that channel, raising questions about whether Hong Kong can remain Asia’s go-to offshore wealth hub.
Bloomberg writes that the latest measures include roughly $330 million in penalties against three brokerages widely used by Chinese investors to access offshore markets, along with tighter scrutiny of banks, trust structures and wealthy individuals moving money abroad. Advisers in Hong Kong say clients quickly began asking whether their accounts could be affected and whether more restrictions are coming. As one lawyer put it, Beijing isn’t slamming the door shut all at once — “they are installing a doorframe.”
That matters because Hong Kong has become deeply dependent on mainland money. Chinese households and companies moved a record $807 billion out of the country last year, and a large share of it landed in Hong Kong, helping the city overtake Switzerland as the world’s biggest offshore wealth hub. That money has supported luxury spending, real estate, stock trading and Hong Kong’s IPO rebound.
Now the mechanics of moving that money are getting harder. Bankers say mainland clients are facing tougher onboarding standards, including declarations that their wealth was sourced outside China. Private banks are fielding more questions from nervous clients, and some ultra-wealthy Chinese are already looking beyond Hong Kong to Europe, Switzerland and the US. The goal doesn’t seem to be stopping every dollar from leaving China, but making sure Beijing has more visibility and leverage over where it goes.
Beijing is also targeting the offshore structures Chinese founders have long used to turn mainland business success into foreign wealth. For years, the playbook was simple: build a company in China, wrap it in an offshore structure, list it abroad or in Hong Kong, collect dividends, then move that money into overseas property, trusts or family offices. China is now squeezing that route too, restricting red-chip IPO structures and tightening rules around whether Hong Kong listing proceeds can remain offshore.
The result is pressure on one of Hong Kong’s most lucrative ecosystems all at once: wealth management, offshore structuring, IPO underwriting and luxury spending tied to mainland fortunes. If rich Chinese can’t move money into the city as easily, Hong Kong doesn’t just lose deposits — it loses deal flow, brokerage activity, family office growth and some of the conspicuous consumption that has powered its rebound. As one Hong Kong lawyer put it, “The family office figures are looking great, but the doors are shutting.”
What’s driving this is straightforward: China needs control, and it needs revenue. The property downturn has hammered local finances, land-sale income has dried up, and Beijing has become more aggressive about tracking taxable wealth that has slipped offshore. It may not want to end offshore investing altogether, but it clearly wants tighter oversight, tighter rules and a bigger claim on the money once it leaves.
For Hong Kong, that creates a real tension. The city still wants to market itself as the natural offshore home for Chinese capital and the financial bridge between China and the rest of the world. But the more Beijing clamps down, the harder it becomes for Hong Kong to play that role with the same freedom it once did — making it look less like a safe haven and more like an extension of the same system wealthy Chinese were trying to hedge against in the first place.
Tyler Durden Thu, 06/25/2026 - 21:20Flight from China to San Francisco diverted after passenger’s wild scuffle with flight attendant
What are Knicks getting in second-round picks Jack Kayil & Tyler Nickel? | NY Got Game
Grotesque ‘zombie squirrels’ with oozing warts spotted roaming through US backyards
Shark Prime Day deals are biting hard with vacuums, air purifiers and more
Brothers are accused of mishandling remains of two dozen people at Colorado funeral home
USMNT-Turkey match has outrageous parking prices near SoFi Stadium
Lionel Messi’s Argentina teammates honor him with ‘very special’ birthday gift at World Cup
Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii's Gun Restrictions In Major Second Amendment Case
Authored by Stacy Robinson & Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 on June 25 to strike down a Hawaii gun law that banned residents from carrying concealed weapons in privately owned public places, such as gas stations and shopping malls, without permission from the owners.
The Supreme Court in Washington on June 23, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch TimesThe majority opinion in Wolford v. Lopez was authored by Justice Samuel Alito.
Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the case, which was closely watched by gun rights advocates.
Alito said the Second Amendment "has the same meaning in all parts of the United States."
"It cannot give way to 'the spirit of Aloha' in Hawaii - any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple - or the Windy City," he said.
"It applies in the same way to our 50th State (where about 8% of adults possess guns) and our 49th State (where the figure is roughly 59%).
"Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment."
Over the years, the court has invoked the so-called doctrine of incorporation to apply the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the Constitution - to the states. Initially, the Bill of Rights was understood to apply only to the federal government.
Hawaii's Act 52 banned handguns on private property unless the permit holder had received "express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property."
It also banned firearms in bars, beaches, parks, and "sensitive places" such as hospitals, schools, and government buildings.
The law placed the onus on private property owners who wish to allow concealed carry on their property to communicate their policy to the public.
The state calls the rule requiring express authorization to carry the "default rule," but critics call it the "vampire rule," naming it after the mythical creatures that need permission to enter a property, Second Amendment expert Cam Edwards previously told The Epoch Times.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Hawaii law, it said the restrictions fell "well within the historical tradition," a reference to the legal test the Supreme Court adopted in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
The appeals court had upheld the state law, pointing to a New Jersey anti-poaching law from 1771 and a Louisiana law from 1865 that it said were "dead ringers" for Hawaii's restrictions.
Earlier in the litigation, a federal district judge blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit largely reversed that decision. In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court allowed Hawaii to enforce much of the law because, in its view, Act 52 was consistent with Bruen, which recognized a "sensitive places" exception to the right to bear arms in public.
At the oral argument on Jan. 20, Hawaii argued that the state statute protects private property rights and the public, while those challenging the law contended it violates their constitutionally protected right to carry guns in public to defend themselves.
The case was brought by three Hawaii gun permit holders and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a gun rights organization, alleging that the state violated the right to bear arms.
This is a breaking story and will be updated.
Tyler Durden Thu, 06/25/2026 - 20:55Gavin Newsom fails to stop California’s controversial billionaire tax from going to voters
Dave Roberts invites Don Mattingly to serve as honorary All-Star coach
Sickening reason for delay in high-tech San Francisco trash cans hitting streets
‘World’s most isolated’ oasis miles off US coast doubles as motorized boat — there’s a catch before booking
Emily Sonnett signs extension with Gotham as Challenge Cup looms
USA fans take over SoFi Stadium ahead of World Cup showdown vs Turkey
Turkey serves as reminder to USMNT how World Cup could have gone very wrong
How one at-bat typifies the talent Yankees believe Jasson Dominguez can still unlock
Mark Carney Seeks "New World Order" That Excludes The US
It's rare to hear the phrase "new world order" spoken publicly in the post-pandemic world where globalists ultimately failed to implement their spectacular covid coup. In 2020, they were everywhere in the media bragging about the takeover; reveling in the vast geopolitical and economic changes that would come with their "4th Industrial Revolution". Today, there's barely a whisper of these concepts beyond closed doors.
High-level globalist and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, however, didn't get the memo. His policy initiatives in the great white north are perhaps even more authoritarian than Justin Trudeau's and more insidious. Canada is on the fast track to becoming a woke Orwellian nightmare state, and this is putting the country in the direct path of conflict with the US.
Carney has continued his efforts to pivot away from the United States and align with Europe. In statements made over the past two weeks, Carney argued that middle-power countries shouldn't compete for favor with America.
Carney asserts that Canada and the European Union have a combined population that is more than twice that of the United States, a similarly sized economy and a collective defense budget that is twice that of China's. He also said smaller nations can multiply their strength by partnering with "like-minded allies" (i.e. far-left globalist governments).
The Prime Minister claims that Canada and Europe as a "force for good" that upholds values like human rights, dignity, and pluralism. As opposed to the US? Carney has been explicit in his antagonism for US meritocracy, nationalism and conservative ideals. It's the primary reason why the Trump Administration has targeted Canada with tariffs. Canada's woke authoritarianism is becoming a serious problem for greater North America.
Why give economic advantage to a foreign government that wants to destroy everything you stand for?
In response, Carney is seeking to join forces with the European Union with a vision for a "new world order" that excludes the US entirely.
“The new world order will be built starting with Europe...Canada is the most European of non-European countries. We are transforming our cooperation with Europe.”
This rhetoric helps to explain why Canadian representatives have been oddly absent from recent trade negotiations and why Canada is no the only nation in the G7 that is experiencing a recession. Some Canadians are beginning to wonder if Carney is deliberately trying to sabotage any potential agreement that would end trade disputes with the US? The answer seems to be "yes", he is undermining negotiations by simply not showing up.
🚨 CARNEY MISSING IN ACTION 🚨
The U.S. ambassador says Canada and the U.S. are “not anywhere close” to a trade framework.
Now Mexico’s economy secretary says Canada was absent from negotiations.
So what exactly has Mark Carney been doing? pic.twitter.com/dUd7srnGJ8
The idea that Canada and Europe will be able to form a counter-economy to the US ignores the fact that the US makes up 30% of global consumer spending. No other nation comes close. Even with the struggles of inflation, US consumer markets are a clear driver of trade around the world and there is no replacement.
The idea of a joint Canada/EU alternative also ignores the fact that these countries are largely socialist, which means their populations are crushed by high taxes, overwhelming bureaucracy and regulations that kill small businesses. Even if these countries work together, they will never have the business momentum required to drive growth. They are a lost cause that will sink further and further into full blown communist as a way to compensate.
Donald Trump's trade and tariff negotiations have sought to correct the unfair imbalances created by NAFTA under Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. This agreement created the primary nexus point for the globalization of the US economy and it was the final nail in the coffin for US manufacturing. Both Canada and Mexico were heavily enriched by the trade boost and cross border investments tripled while production jobs flowed out of the US.
The end goal of globalization is clear by the trade agreements that globalists create: The goal is artificial international wealth redistribution by forcing top tier economies to give up their advantages to smaller economies. In other words, wealthy countries are being incrementally degraded to make them equal with the lowest common denominator.
The more the US seeks to emulate European models, the more the economy declines. The same will happen to Canada. The country does have the means to be far more independent and self reliant, but that would require a dramatic change in national leadership (a conservative and pro-business regime). It doesn't look like this will happen anytime soon, and so, Canada faces a long and arduous path to financial oblivion.
Tyler Durden Thu, 06/25/2026 - 20:30