News related to
Collapse

A deepening rift between Iran and international nuclear inspectors marks a turning point in Tehran’s approach to its atomic programme and signals a complex challenge for global diplomacy. Iran has formally suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, severing communication channels and obstructing inspections, in the wake of U.S. and Israeli military strikes on its nuclear sites.

The move was set in motion on 23 June when Iran’s parliamentary national security committee approved a framework for halting camera installation, inspections, and reporting to the IAEA unless the “security of nuclear facilities is guaranteed”. The legislation was ratified by the Guardian Council on 26 June and now awaits signature from President Masoud Pezeshkian. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf justified the step, stating that cooperation should resume only when IAEA activity ceases to endanger facilities.

Iran has since implemented the decision, reportedly blocking emergency channel calls from the IAEA’s Vienna headquarters. According to a Bloomberg report, once the Incident and Emergency Centre had been in sustained dialogue since 13 June, communication has now dwindled to silence.

The suspension has intensified global worry over what happened at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites that were struck in late June by U.S. and Israeli forces. Satellite imagery indicates significant damage, and the UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi described the destruction as “enormous”, stating that centrifuges at Fordow are no longer operational. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the strikes as theatrics, displaying defiance in his first address since a ceasefire with Israel, while the IAEA has received no formal notification from Tehran about the halt.

Inspectors face a dual challenge: assessing bomb damage and reconciling it with actual uranium stockpiles. Reuters reports that uncovering whether enriched uranium was destroyed, buried in debris or clandestinely moved will be “long and arduous”. IAEA chief Grossi noted Iran informed him on 13 June it had taken measures to protect nuclear materials — raising the possibility that uranium was relocated before the bombings.

A senior diplomat cautioned that verifying the fate of enriched stocks will require extended forensic and environmental analysis. Analysts highlight that these uncertainties, coupled with Iran’s growing 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile — now surpassed 400 kg — raise proliferation concerns. Iran stands as the only non-nuclear-weapons state to produce such highly enriched material.

The crisis threatens to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Experts warn that Iran’s rejection of oversight and potential expansion of enrichment capabilities could erode confidence in international safeguards and spark similar behaviour in other states.

Tehran counters that it remains compliant with its obligations, defending the withdrawal as a sovereignty measure and accusing the IAEA of complicity in aggression. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov urged Iran to maintain IAEA cooperation. German officials echoed this sentiment, appealing for de-escalation and finer calibration.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence contend the strikes brought Iran’s enrichment efforts to a standstill, yet stop short of describing them as complete obliteration. Donald Trump claimed the attacks eliminated any need for a new nuclear deal, yet leaked U.S. intelligence suggests only a short-term delay of a few months.

Disruption of IAEA activities follows a pattern of mounting distrust. The agency censure on 12 June marked the first formal finding of non-compliance by Iran in two decades. Tehran subsequently announced expansion of enrichment infrastructure, including a third site and advanced centrifuges.

This standoff adds complexity to diplomatic efforts. Indirect U.S.–Iran negotiations held from April to June in Oman and Rome collapsed when Israel struck nuclear facilities on 13 June. Although Washington has signalled readiness to resume dialogue, Iran’s decision to suspend IAEA cooperation adds another layer of mistrust.

The prospect of tracking uranium movements amid top-secret relocation efforts, inaccessible bombed sites, and blocked communications has created a labyrinthine challenge. Inspectors and intelligence agencies alike face a “cat-and-mouse” hunt for clarity in rubble and uncertainty. Continued monitoring and a potential return to diplomatic channels will be vital in determining whether the inspection suspension is temporary or signals a more fundamental shift in Iran’s nuclear stance.

Beirut’s landscape, battered by the 14‑month Hezbollah–Israel war, is set for a critical transformation as the World Bank green‑lights a US$250 million financing package to support urgent restoration and rubble management. Dubbed the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Project, this initiative marks the initial phase of a US$1 billion, government‑led framework aimed at breathing life back into vital public infrastructure and essential services.

Damage and needs assessments conducted between 8 October 2023 and 20 December 2024 estimate total conflict losses at US$7.2 billion, with an overarching reconstruction requirement of US$11 billion. Of this, approximately US$1.1 billion pertains to infrastructure across transport, water, energy, municipal services, education and healthcare – the precise sectors that LEAP will target for immediate interventions.

Jean‑Christophe Carret, the World Bank’s Middle East director, described LEAP’s design as “a credible vehicle for development partners to align their support, alongside continued progress on the Government’s reform agenda, and maximise collective impact in support of Lebanon’s recovery and long‑term reconstruction”. The financing will fund rapid repairs to lifeline services, sustainable clearance of rubble prioritising recycling, and initial design and environmental studies for longer‑term rebuilding.

By adopting a data‑driven, area‑based prioritisation endorsed by the Council of Ministers, LEAP aims to balance speed with social and economic impact in the worst‑affected regions. To ensure accountability and effective delivery, Lebanon has initiated reforms within the Council for Development and Reconstruction, including the appointment of a fully functional board and streamlined processes consistent with international emergency‑response standards.

Operational oversight will be bolstered by an international private‑sector engineering firm, responsible for compliance monitoring across technical, environmental, fiduciary and AML/CFT requirements. Implementation rests under the strategic guidance of the Prime Minister’s Office, with the Ministry of Public Works and Transport leading execution and the Ministry of Environment overseeing social and environmental safeguards, especially debris handling.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the funding as “a key step in reconstruction… reinforcing recovery efforts within a state‑led framework and paving the way for much‑needed additional financing”.

The World Bank has previously confirmed that this initial contribution is part of a US$1 billion scalable fund, with $250 million already committed and plans for donor contributions to fill the remaining $750 million. Lebanon has already secured preliminary approval to raise the World Bank loan to $400 million, signalling growing momentum for the broader rehabilitation agenda.

LEAP emerges at a juncture when Lebanon, in the grip of one of its most severe financial crises in modern history, is balancing a recovery from war with deep‑rooted economic collapse. Nearly three‑quarters of its population live in poverty, the currency has collapsed by over 90 % since 2019, and public services have all but collapsed. The project’s prioritisation of transparency, environmental best practice, and governance reform offers a fresh test of Lebanon’s capacity to channel international finance into tangible, equitable recovery.

Meanwhile, the World Bank is coordinating with multilateral and bilateral donors, aligning its initial funding with evolving Lebanese reforms. The ultimate success of LEAP depends not only on reconstruction dollars, but on effective institutional stewardship—a challenge Lebanon’s government has pledged to embrace.

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that American and Iranian officials will meet next week to discuss Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, following a concerted military campaign that he claims has effectively neutralised key Iranian enrichment facilities. The announcement came at the NATO summit in The Hague.

Trump defended the use of bunker-busting bombs against the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan sites, asserting they had been “obliterated” and describing the bombing campaign as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear programme. He struck a triumphant tone, crediting the strikes with hastening the end of the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, though he expressed reservations about formalising a diplomatic agreement: “We may sign an agreement. I don’t know, to me, I don’t think it’s that necessary,” he told reporters.

U.S. intelligence assessments, however, diverge on the scale of success. A preliminary report from the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded the setbacks to Iran’s nuclear efforts might be limited to a matter of months, not years. CIA Director John Ratcliffe affirmed that the programme had been “severely damaged” but stopped short of declaring it destroyed. Israeli officials estimated the setbacks to be multi‑year, while the International Atomic Energy Agency emphasised uncertainties over Iran’s stockpile and called for robust inspections.

Diplomatic activity has meanwhile resumed. This U.S.–Iran meeting will follow six rounds of indirect talks mediated by Oman and Italy, which collapsed in mid‑June as the military confrontation intensified. Earlier this week, European envoys from the E‑3—France, Germany and the UK—engaged in direct negotiations in Geneva with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Those discussions aimed to bridge differences after stalled U.S. efforts.

White House special envoy Steve Witkoff reiterated red‑line U.S. stipulations ahead of next week’s meeting: Tehran must renounce nuclear weaponisation and accept restrictions on uranium enrichment. He noted the U.S. is open to crafting a comprehensive peace framework, building on what Trump described as a de‑escalation following “a victory for everybody”.

From Tehran, Iranian officials have not confirmed next week’s meeting but emphasised national security. The Iranian parliament accelerated a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, pending guarantees for the safety of nuclear infrastructure targeted in the strikes. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf accused the IAEA of failing to condemn the U.S. attack. Meanwhile, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi urged renewed inspections to clarify the status of enriched uranium moved before the bombings.

Regional and global actors are also weighing in. France has called for robust diplomacy to carve a sustained peace path. China has echoed the call for diplomatic restraint. Israel hailed the strikes as a critical setback to Iran’s programme; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed Trump’s strong posture and emphasised the need to keep pressure on Tehran.

Analysts note the gravity of waging diplomacy in the shadow of military action. One specialist observed that while bombings may degrade enrichment infrastructure, they can complicate trust and cooperation needed for inspections and verification. Moreover, uncertainty lingers over the status of highly enriched uranium caches. Rebuilding diplomatic channels will require assurances, reciprocal transparency, and a mutual understanding of consequences.

Trump has warned that if Iran attempts to rebuild its nuclear programme, the U.S. is prepared to act again: “Sure,” he said when asked about further strikes. Yet the pendulum has swung toward a blend of military deterrence and diplomatic engagement.

As next week’s talks approach, key questions remain: who will represent each side, where the dialogue will occur, and whether the focus will be solely nuclear constraints or broader regional stability. White House administration officials have yet to disclose details, but the U.S. envoy confirmed Washington’s intent is to establish a framework that could replace the 2015 agreement.

Trump also signalled openness to exploring a bilateral relationship beyond nuclear confines: “We’ll end up having something of a relationship with Iran,” he said, as long as Tehran adheres to non‑weaponisation terms.

As the diplomatic window opens under the spectre of military force, the world watches to see whether this fragile blend of coercion and conciliation can unfold into a sustainable agreement—one that might ensure Iran never pursues nuclear weapons and stabilises a volatile region.

Japan’s Financial Services Agency has unveiled plans to amend the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, bringing cryptocurrencies under securities‑style regulation and opening the door to Bitcoin spot ETFs. The proposals also aim to replace the current progressive tax on crypto gains—ranging up to 55 per cent—with a uniform 20 per cent levy.

The agency’s discussion paper, released on 10 April by its digital policy division, outlines regulatory changes including classification of crypto into “Type 1” and “Type 2”, with insider‑trading rules to follow much like those in equity markets.

Behind the latest move is a growing consensus among Japan’s mainstream political and financial circles. The governing Liberal Democratic Party has actively backed the 20 per cent tax proposal, offering parity with capital‑gains treatment on stocks and bonds. It has also pushed to align tax on derivatives and crypto‑to‑crypto swaps accordingly.

Parliament is expected to review legislative amendments in early 2026, with the FSA targeting a policy direction announcement by mid‑2025.

Analysts note the regulatory upgrade could unlock institutional entry. While crypto ETFs have been launched in the US, Europe and Hong Kong, Japanese regulators have remained notably cautious. Under the proposed amendments, crypto-like instruments would qualify as financial instruments, subject to disclosure, custody, and market‑abuse safeguards.

This shift marks a departure from the current regime under the Payment Services Act, where digital assets are categorised alongside payments rather than securities. The FSA’s plan would position crypto within a legal framework better suited to large-scale trading activities.

Tax treatment has been a central barrier. Gains on crypto are now taxed as “miscellaneous” income—reaching rates as high as 55 per cent—while ETFs qualify as capital gains taxed around 20 per cent. The new flat rate would remove current inequities and possibly stimulate market growth.

Participants in the Japanese financial industry, including SBI and Franklin Templeton, are reportedly making strategic preparations. SBI has already collaborated with both US and UK asset managers to launch crypto‑related products, anticipating that regulatory approval will soon follow.

Despite these signals, caution persists. The Ministry of Finance remains cautious, wary of crypto’s volatility and adverse events such as the collapse of Mt. Gox and DMM Wallet, which led to extensive losses. The FSA itself is said to proceed methodically, emphasising investor protection above all.

To ensure granularity, the FSA’s discussion paper recommends dividing tokens into two regulatory categories: Type 1 assets—used in fundraising or business operations—and Type 2 assets, which include decentralised tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum with no single issuer. This structure supports tailored oversight, including anti‑insider trading provisions.

Industry reactions reflect a mix of anticipation and prudence. Proponents argue that clearer classification and tax certainty would attract both retail and institutional investors. They point to the global momentum behind crypto ETFs and the relative tax efficiency such structures bring. Opponents, however, urge regulators to remain vigilant to market manipulation and developing infrastructure risks.

Global comparisons place Japan near the frontier of regulatory maturity. Countries such as the United States have delayed crypto classification under securities law even as they approved Bitcoin ETFs. The EU’s MiCA and Hong Kong’s licensing framework signal increased global regulatory alignment. Japan’s proposed amendments would signal competitive parity in Asia‑Pacific markets.

As Japan prepares to table the bill in parliament in 2026, attention will centre on implementation details. These include ETF approval timelines, disclosure requirements for exchanges and custodians, and whether the flat‑tax rate will apply retroactively or to future accruals only.

Bitcoin continues to hover above the US $100,000 mark, yet the network’s on‑chain activity tells a contrasting story. Overall transaction counts have declined sharply—from over 730,000 daily in 2023–24 to between 320,000 and 500,000 so far in 2025—while average transaction values surge, indicating that large investors are driving activity.

Despite fewer overall movements, the economic weight of each transaction remains high. Daily on‑chain settlement averages around US $7.5 billion, peaking at US $16 billion when Bitcoin briefly pierced its all‑time high of US $111.7 thousand. That amounts to an average transaction value of about US $36.2 thousand—dramatically higher than before.

The evidence points to a concentration in high‑value transfers. Transactions exceeding US $100,000 now account for nearly 89 percent of on‑chain volume—a stark increase from around 66 percent in late 2022—while transfers under that threshold have dwindled. Smaller wallets and lower‑value senders are increasingly absent from the blockchain.

Transaction fees are also bucking historical trends. In previous bull markets, network congestion drove fees higher. Now, with Bitcoin nearing all‑time highs, miner fee revenue has dropped to just US $558,000 per day—markedly low in comparison to past cycles. This divergence demonstrates muted block‑space demand despite soaring prices.

Meanwhile, trading activity is shifting decisively off‑chain. Centralised exchanges now dominate, with combined spot, futures and options volumes estimated at seven to 16 times greater than on‑chain settlement values. Futures markets alone trade roughly US $57 billion per day on average, peaking at US $122 billion in November 2024. Spot volumes, although smaller, remain robust, averaging US $10 billion daily.

Total open interest in Bitcoin futures and options has reached about US $96.2 billion. Notably, collateral structures have improved; stablecoin‑margined positions now dominate the derivatives landscape—an encouraging sign of reduced systemic risk following the collapse of FTX.

The on‑chain/off‑chain divergence shapes a nuanced picture: Bitcoin’s price resilience stems less from broad public usage and more from concentrated institutional flows and leveraged activity in centralised markets. While large holders continue to shift substantial sums on‑chain, much of the ecosystem’s vitality lies within off‑chain derivatives.

U.S. military jets attacked three uranium-enrichment facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—after President Trump authorised a precision bombing campaign targeting underground shafts, marking a significant escalation in efforts to curb Tehran’s atomic ambitions. Trump asserted that the installations were “totally obliterated” following deployment of B‑2 stealth bombers armed with GBU‑57 bunker‑buster munitions. Pentagon officials confirmed this was the first operational use of Massive Ordnance Penetrators.

Satellite imagery shows craters at Fordow and Natanz, alongside signs of collapsed tunnel entrances and surface damage. Yet analysts caution that subterranean caverns may remain intact. One crater at Natanz measured approximately 5.5 metres across, and a large support structure at Fordow appeared untouched. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no detectable increase in off‑site radiation but acknowledges an inability to evaluate underground facility damage.

Destruction of declared nuclear infrastructure may impair Iran’s enrichment capabilities temporarily, but it adds complexity to monitoring efforts. The strikes have disrupted IAEA inspectors’ routine inspections and scattered environmental samples, weakening the agency’s ability to conduct forensic analysis. Former IAEA official Robert Kelley warned that bomb‑strewn sites render isotopic sampling nearly impossible, complicating accurate uranium accounting.

On diplomatic and military fronts, the strikes have triggered serious concern. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister characterised global tensions as “millimetres” from the brink of nuclear confrontation. Iran’s leadership, including foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, condemned the attacks as “lawless aggression,” and pledged proportionate retaliation. Iranian state media reported missile defence operations over Tehran and Karaj, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned U.S. bases in the region may face “regrettable responses”.

Allies have issued mixed reactions. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong backed the action as a move to prevent weaponisation, though she also called for a halt to hostilities and a return to diplomacy. In Washington, lawmakers are divided: some Republicans applaud the airstrikes, while Democratic leaders criticise the unilateral decision absent congressional authorisation.

Despite military claims of success, experts caution that bombing cannot permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. A 2025 Reuters analysis noted that even well-targeted airstrikes would likely result in only temporary delay, with underground facilities concealing critical components and technical expertise intact. The IAEA’s upcoming board meeting in Vienna is expected to address both the fissile-material disruption and the challenge of rebuilding effective verification.

Iran had responded to earlier IAEA censure by announcing a new enrichment site and upgrading centrifuges at Fordow, deepening concerns over progress toward weaponisation. By mid‑June, the agency confirmed that Iran held approximately 409 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium—enough for several warheads if further refined.

Military strategists believe that while Israel’s campaigns damaged above‑ground infrastructure, only the U.S. possessed the capability to strike buried facilities effectively. But even with advanced bunker‑busters, Fordow remains a tough target; Israel earlier claimed it could strike the site independently, though many experts doubted that it had the means to deliver sufficient penetration.

Operation “Midnight Hammer,” as it is reportedly codenamed, has bolstered military deterrence, yet it may harden Iran’s resolve. Observers warn that Tehran is likely to deepen its program underground, reduce transparency, and accelerate its nuclear pursuits outside of IAEA oversight.

Amid rising hostilities, diplomatic overtures remain faint. Iranian and U.S. envoys were scheduled to meet in Oman, while Araghchi was set to confer with Russian counterparts in Moscow. The IAEA board’s deliberations in Vienna may prove a critical venue for negotiating how to restore inspections, assess nuclear inventory, and potentially revive diplomacy.

Analysts stress that without sustained oversight, military strikes risk igniting an arms race. Uranium shields buried deeper, veiled by bomb damage, could reemerge in new sites—potentially accelerating forceful advances outside the scrutiny of Western intelligence.

Coinbase has received authorisation under the EU’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets regulation through Luxembourg, designating the country as its primary European hub and shifting focus away from Ireland. The approval — the first of its kind for a major U.S. exchange — grants Coinbase a passport to operate across all 27 EU member states.

Luxembourg’s growing financial stature and regulatory strength made it a logical choice, according to Coinbase, which already employs around 200 staff across Europe. The exchange plans to expand its Luxembourg team by at least 20 personnel by year-end. Luxembourg’s regulator declined to comment, but insiders say the jurisdiction sets a “high‑bar” for entry — a stance that counters concerns from other nations about lax standards in smaller markets.

This move underscores a broader shift in the EU crypto ecosystem. Gemini, founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, is expected to be granted its MiCA licence by Malta, following earlier approvals of OKX and Crypto.com. These licensing decisions highlight the increasing competition among EU member states to attract digital‑asset firms.

Meanwhile, Ireland — previously heralded as Coinbase’s launchpad with an e‑money licence and Virtual Asset Service Provider registration — has lost momentum. Its central bank governor previously warned that crypto often operates like a Ponzi scheme, reflecting a cooler official attitude toward the industry.

MiCA’s passport system allows a single licence to provide regulatory cover throughout the bloc, but some EU financial watchdogs are raising concerns. They argue that rapid approvals in smaller jurisdictions like Malta or Luxembourg could lead to uneven regulatory enforcement, undermining the very protections the framework aims to provide. The European Securities and Markets Authority is reportedly monitoring these developments amid internal discussions about its oversight role.

Luxembourg’s emerging appeal as a crypto gateway appears rooted in its established reputation as a financial centre with robust supervision. In contrast, Ireland’s more sceptical posture may have made it less attractive for firms seeking clearly defined regulatory environments under the new rules.

Market analysts say these MiCA approvals could significantly increase institutional confidence in European digital‑asset markets, offering a model for compliance and consumer protection. However, they warn that inconsistent national implementation could result in “regulatory arbitrage,” where firms exploit jurisdictional loopholes.

The global crypto market, valued at around US $3.3 trillion, is still navigating the fallout from major collapses like FTX in 2022. MiCA marks a pivotal shift toward formal oversight in the EU, aiming to safeguard investors while fostering innovation. The licensing of high‑profile U.S. exchanges such as Coinbase and Gemini represents a critical test of whether this new continental regime can deliver both growth and stability.

A ballistic missile launched by Iran struck the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange building in Ramat Gan on 19 June 2025, inflicting substantial structural damage in the heart of Israel’s financial district. This incident occurred amid a coordinated barrage that also hit key civilian infrastructure elsewhere, including Soroka Medical Centre in Be’er Sheva, intensifying already volatile regional tensions.

Sirens wailed across central and southern Israel as air defence systems engaged waves of inbound missiles. Between 20 and 30 ballistic projectiles were reported, an escalation surpassing previous exchanges earlier this monthꟷnotably those on 15 and 16 June, which injured dozens and damaged residences in Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Haifa. This latest salvo targeted multiple urban areas, with at least 32 civilians confirmed wounded by Magen David Adom teams, some in serious condition.

The stock exchange structure, known as Birsa, sustained extensive facade damage and shattered windows, with parts of surrounding offices impacted. Video footage circulated online showing debris falling from upper floors into streets below. Emergency crews were deployed immediately to evacuate employees and assess structural integrity, though no fatalities were reported at the site.

In parallel, Soroka Medical Centre at Be’er Sheva—Israel’s principal hospital serving around one million residents with more than 1,000 beds—was also struck. Footage and eyewitness reports confirmed significant damage: roof collapse in some wards, shattered glass across corridors and injuries among both patients and medical staff. Hospital officials imposed strict access controls, advising the public to avoid the area as emergency protocols were activated.

Israel’s air-defence systems, including Iron Dome and Arrow batteries, intercepted many of the missiles but failed to prevent all impacts. Some missiles penetrated defences and struck densely populated neighbourhoods, damaging residential high-rises and injuring civilians. This pattern marks a troubling shift. Previous intercepts had been more successful, but the latest strikes have underscored vulnerabilities in urban protection.

The missile offensive came as retaliation for Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Earlier on 19 June, Israeli aircraft reportedly struck the heavy-water reactor at Arak and a related plutonium-production component, in what the Israeli government called efforts to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran’s state media countered that the reactor had been evacuated in advance and there was no radiation leak.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly condemned the missile strikes on Israel’s financial hub and its hospital network, accusing Iran’s leadership of targeting civilians and vowing that Tehran “will pay the full price”. Defence officials say that Iran deployed over 25 missiles targeting Israeli urban centres during this wave.

Humanitarian services are stretched thin. Magen David Adom paramedics reported at least 32 people with injuries ranging from shock and minor shrapnel wounds to serious trauma in Be’er Sheva and Tel Aviv. Hospitals near strike zones have diverted critically ill patients and limited admissions to emergencies, raising concerns over the continuity of essential health services.

Economically, the assault on the stock exchange reverberated across markets. While share trading has continued, operational disruptions occurred as staff evacuated and investigations into building safety commenced. Analysts note that the financial centre embodies Israel’s economic resilience, but warn that repeated infrastructure targeting injects uncertainty into investor sentiment.

As missiles fly in both directions, global powers are watching warily. US President Donald Trump indicated possible military support for Israel pending internal approval, while European leaders called for restraint and emphasised the potential for diplomatic channels. The International Atomic Energy Agency has voiced alarm over Iran’s uranium enrichment practices, now exacerbated by military confrontations sparked by retaliatory airstrikes.

Israeli authorities warn that this may be Iran’s most sustained attack yet, burning through long-range arsenal previously reserved for strategic military targets. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran is deploying missiles intensively—over 400 since the conflict’s escalation—though only a fraction have struck urban centres.

With civilian infrastructure clearly in the crosshairs, the stakes are escalating dangerously. Analysts warn that further strikes on hospitals, markets or cultural institutions may invite stronger Israeli countermeasures, potentially widening the conflict. For now, cities remain on high alert as missiles continue to disrupt daily life and rattle the foundations of an already tense Middle East.

South Korea’s Seoul Southern District Court on 17 June acquitted Haru Invest CEO Lee Hyung‑soo of fraud charges linked to the collapse of withdrawal services that triggered investor losses of approximately $650 million. The court determined there was no deliberate intention to mislead the 6,000-plus affected depositors, citing legitimate business activity that merely suffered collapse from contagion stemming from the FTX collapse.

Prosecutors had alleged Lee orchestrated a $650 million fraud scheme by misleading investors and misappropriating user funds. They argued that the firm, owned by parent company Blockcrafters, presented itself as secure and sustainable before halting withdrawals in mid‑2023, inflicting financial hardship on users. Nonetheless, the court concluded that while Haru Invest’s model carried high risk, it was not inherently deceptive.

The court’s ruling also cleared the company’s co‑CEOs at Blockcrafters, who faced similar allegations. In contrast, Haru’s chief operating officer, Kang, received a two‑year prison sentence after being found guilty of embezzlement. The court determined Kang had transferred client funds to his personal accounts, a charge distinct from the fraud accusations directed at Lee and other executives.

Judges noted connections between Haru’s difficulties and the broader collapse of the cryptocurrency ecosystem following the FTX failure. They observed that Haru deployed a legitimate yield‑earning model using third‑party counterparties, including B&S Holdings, but that the sudden disruption in liquidity markets amplified losses. There was no evidence, the ruling held, that Lee intentionally misrepresented Haru’s operations or risk profile to investors.

Concurrently, prosecution testimonials during closing arguments revealed that Haru marketed its platform as capable of delivering annual interest rates exceeding 10 per cent on deposits of Bitcoin, Ethereum and USDT. Investor expectations were inflated, yet those losses, believed to be exacerbated by exposure to over‑leveraged counterparty relationships, were judged to result from systemic failure rather than criminal intent.

Throughout the proceedings the defence emphasised Lee’s commitment to asset return. Lee personally told the court that investors retained ownership of their crypto assets and that Haru operated legally under custody arrangements. He insisted that financial setbacks resulted from Bernard Bang’s mismanagement at B&S, a company entrusted with executing Haru’s yield‑earning strategy. The defence maintained that Haru’s abrupt withdrawal suspension in June 2023 was a reactive measure to liquidity pressure, not an attempt to defraud.

Meanwhile, the court confirmed that Kang, the COO, diverted funds into accounts unrelated to Haru’s operations, violating fiduciary responsibility, and meriting his conviction. His sentence reflected the separation in responsibility between him and senior management, who genuinely believed in and operated under a legitimate model.

The financial aftermath continues: Haru has appointed an insolvency administrator and launched a creditor claims process affecting thousands of both domestic and overseas investors. According to user‑submitted civil filings, the firm is pursuing recovery of assets tied to the FTX bankruptcy estate, including staking returns and counterparties’ restitution. Victims are filing asset‑recognition claims under Korean bankruptcy law, arguing that deposited tokens belong to them and should be returned outside Haru’s bankrupt estate.

In parallel, appellate proceedings are expected for Kang, whose sentence may be modified as his embezzlement involved funds beyond his legal authority. Lee and his co‑CEOs are also preparing appeals, emphasising that Haru’s structure and disclosures conformed with regulations at the time of operation.