Breaking news

Cysec Implements Strategic Enforcement Measures Amid Enhanced Regulatory Oversight

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

August 11, 2025

Suspension of Triangleview Investments Ltd

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (Cysec) has taken decisive action by suspending the authorization of Triangleview Investments Ltd. The regulator cited multiple infractions including breaches of anti‐money laundering provisions, inadequate board and management structures, and a failure to meet organizational obligations. The suspension, effective immediately, prevents the firm from offering investment services, entering new business arrangements, or seeking new clients. However, the company is permitted to conclude ongoing transactions and return funds and instruments to its existing client base, provided compliance measures are implemented within a two‐month period.

Administrative Fine for Lydya Financial Ltd

In another enforcement move, Cysec imposed an administrative fine of €100 on Lydya Financial Ltd for non-compliance with the QST-CIF Form submission requirements for the first quarter of 2025. This fine underscores the regulator’s commitment to operational transparency and adherence to prescribed circulars, specifically addressing the obligations under article 56(4) of the Cysec Law.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Revocation of Previous Rulings for Latnodo Ltd And Cossfort Ltd

On July 21, 2025, Cysec re-evaluated past decisions affecting Latnodo Ltd and Cossfort Ltd, which were initially found to be non-compliant with section 32(3) of the Cysec Law and were subject to earlier administrative penalties. Following a reassessment, the regulator revoked these decisions and removed related announcements from its website, thereby correcting the regulatory record.

Exemption Granted to Albacon Ventures Ltd

In a notable development on August 4, 2025, Cysec granted Albacon Ventures Ltd an exemption from the mandatory public takeover offer requirement in connection with its proposed acquisition of 244,679 ordinary shares in Astarta Holding Plc. The exemption was justified by the fact that the proposed acquisition constitutes less than one percent of Astarta Holding Plc’s total voting rights. Conditions of the exemption stipulate that the acquisition must be finalized within twelve months and that adjustments for any changes in the company’s voting shares will be reflected in the one percent threshold. Furthermore, any subsequent share disposals by Albacon Ventures or its affiliate, Viktor Ivanchyk, will nullify the exemption for additional acquisitions.

Conclusion

These varied regulatory actions highlight Cysec’s rigorous oversight in maintaining market integrity and investor protection. By enforcing compliance measures and recalibrating earlier decisions, the regulator reinforces its commitment to a transparent and robust investment framework in Cyprus.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.