Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) is reportedly updating its guidelines to allow corporations to invest in digital assets after a nine-year ban. 

Listed companies and professional investors will be able to invest up to 5% of their equity capital in crypto assets, reported local news outlet Seoul Economic Daily on Sunday. 

According to the report, a senior FSC official familiar with the matter said the authorities will “release the final guidelines in January [or] February and allow virtual currency transactions for investment and financial purposes by legal entities.”

The move overturns a nine-year ban on corporate crypto investment dating back to 2017, when financial authorities banned institutional participation amid concerns over money laundering.

However, investments will be limited to the top 20 crypto assets by market capitalization and can only be made on Korea’s five largest regulated exchanges. 

The inclusion of dollar-pegged stablecoins such as Tether’s USDT is still being discussed, the report noted. 

The FSC shared the latest guidelines with its crypto working group on Jan. 6 and first announced plans for a phased approach to easing rules for corporate crypto investments in February 2025.  

Potential bullish impact on Korean markets 

The move could bring tens of trillions of won into crypto markets. South Korean internet giant Naver, which has 27 trillion won ($18.4 billion) in equity capital, could theoretically buy 10,000 BTC, according to the report. 

It added that the launch of a national stablecoin and spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds is also expected to be accelerated once the corporate investment capacity is secured. Support for crypto ETFs has been building across the country, but regulatory approval remains stalled. 

The move could also result in an expansion of local crypto companies, blockchain startups, and digital asset treasuries (DATs) while boosting domestic investment in digital assets. 

Large South Korean companies have been forced to invest overseas to avoid local restrictions, it added. 

CBDC and stablecoins focus of the economic strategy

The outlet reported on Friday that the South Korean government announced an ambitious digital currency strategy with a primary goal of executing 25% of all national treasury funds through a central bank digital currency (CBDC) by 2030.

The initiative, which is part of the 2026 Economic Growth Strategy, also involves introducing a licensing system for stablecoin issuers, such as Tether, requiring 100% reserve asset backing and legally guaranteeing users’ redemption rights. 

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Jan. 12 that she had a productive dialogue with President Donald Trump on efforts to combat drug trafficking and other issues of mutual concern.

“We had a very good conversation with the President of the United States, Donald Trump,” Sheinbaum wrote in a post on X on Monday.

“We discussed various topics, including security, with respect for our sovereignty, reducing drug trafficking, trade, and investment. Collaboration and cooperation within a framework of mutual respect always yield results.”

As The Epoch Times’ Ryan Morgan reports, the conversation between the two heads of state comes as Trump has raised pressure on Mexico and other Latin American states to increase cooperation with the United States, particularly in efforts to curb drug trafficking.

After U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a pre-dawn raid on Jan. 3, Trump said Mexico needs to “get its act together” when dealing with drug cartels and reiterated offers to send U.S. forces to assist in such efforts.

On Jan. 8, Trump raised the stakes further, suggesting U.S. military strikes could focus on land-based cartel targets in Mexico in the future.

Thus far, Sheinbaum has been opposed to U.S. military action in Mexico.

Speaking with reporters at a Monday press conference, Sheinbaum said she and Trump again discussed a U.S. force deployment to Mexico and said Trump was understanding as she reiterated her opposition to such a move.

“He didn’t insist either; rather, it was in the tone of, ‘If you want us to help you more with our forces in Mexico,’ I told him, ‘Well, no, I’ve already told you several times that that’s not on the table,’ but we continue to collaborate within the framework of our sovereignties,” Sheinbaum recounted of the conversation.

The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment on the call between Trump and Sheinbaum but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a separate call with Mexican Foreign Secretary Juan Ramón de la Fuente on Jan. 11.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the two discussed “the need for stronger cooperation to dismantle Mexico’s violent narcoterrorist networks and stop the trafficking of fentanyl and weapons.”

“Secretary Rubio reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to stopping narcoterrorism and stressed the need for tangible results to protect our homeland and hemisphere.”

Colombia and Cuba also face increased pressure from a Trump administration emboldened by the Maduro raid.

Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro have traded barbs in recent weeks, with the U.S. president faulting his Colombian counterpart for not cooperating closely enough on efforts to stamp out Colombia’s cocaine production.

Last week, Trump reported a productive phone conversation with Petro and indicated plans to host him at the White House in the near future.

U.S. pressure on Cuba remains high.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Sunday, said he had cut Cuba off from Venezuela’s oil supply.

“There will be no more oil or money going to Cuba—zero! I strongly suggest they make a deal, before it is too late,” Trump wrote in mostly all caps.

The United States has limited its engagement with the Cuban leadership for decades, after the Caribbean island nation came under communist control following Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

In a press statement following Trump’s latest comments, Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said U.S.-Cuba relations “must be based on International Law rather than on hostility, threats, and economic coercion.”

After it quietly faded away in late summer, that trade war with China is about to make a triumphal reappearance.

In a day that was already flooded by a relentless firehose of newsflow, Trump added to the leaning tower of chaos when said on Truth Social that he was imposing a 25% tariff on goods from countries “doing business” with Iran (most notably China which is its largest oil client), ratcheting up pressure on the government in Tehran that has been rocked by widespread protests.

Trump said that the new duty would be “effective immediately,” without providing any details about the scope or implementation of the charges, leaving traders to act first and ask questions later if at all (a big reason why there is zero liquidity in the market is because people are trading with zero conviction and unwind trades just as fast as they put them on).

The action has the potential to disrupt major US trading relationships across the globe: as Bloomberg notes, Iran’s partners include not only neighboring states, but large economies including India, Turkey and especially China.

“Any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. This Order is final and conclusive,” he said.

Previously, Trump had imposed tariffs as high as 50% on Indian goods tied to their purchase of Russian oil, and while India initially reduced its purchases of Russian crude it has since ramped them back up; China on the other hand, never even noticed the Trumpian edict.

Needless to say, the additional 25% tariff – assuming it sticks – hitting Beijing exports risks upsetting the trade truce Trump negotiated with Chinese President Xi Jinping late last year. China is the world’s top buyer of Iranian crude and the nation’s independent refiners were increasing their intake of the oil as of last month.

While the lack of details in the Trump declaration was confusing, adding to the sheer chaos is an impending decision by the US Supreme Court on the legality of Trump’s global tariffs. If the justices rule against him, it could hamper his ability to quickly impose duties on Iran’s partners. The court’s next opinion day is Wednesday.

As for Iran, it has been experiencing weeks of mass unrest, which was initially sparked by a currency crisis and worsening economic conditions but has increasingly been aimed at the regime. It’s amounted to the biggest challenge to the Islamic Republic’s ruling system since 1979. While Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime has weathered protests before, the demonstrations are spreading and drew hundreds of thousands of people, by some accounts, across the country over the weekend. Iranian authorities have sought to stamp out the protests with more than 500 people killed so far and more than 10,000 arrests, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Trump has openly backed the protesters and warned Tehran against violently repressing the demonstrations. In an interview on Fox News last week, he said the US would hit Iran “very hard” if it continued to shoot at protesters.

As reported earlier, Trump president told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian leadership has reached out to seek talks and that a meeting is being set up, without offering details on timing. Still, he said that his administration is considering potential options and indicated he was coordinating with allies in response to Iran.

“We’re looking at it very seriously. The military is looking at it, and we’re looking at some very strong options,” Trump told reporters. “I’m getting an hourly report and we’re going to make a determination.”

Also over the weekend, a White House official said that Trump has been briefed on a range of options for military strikes in Iran, including nonmilitary sites. The president is seriously considering authorizing an attack, according to the official who requested anonymity to detail internal discussions.

Still, there is hope for a peaceful resolution: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has opened channels of communication with Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, a spokesman from the ministry said Monday.

Meanwhile, Iran has warned the US and Israel – which coordinated to carry out strikes on nuclear facilities in the country last year – against any attempt to intervene. Tehran and Washington have not had formal diplomatic ties for decades.

Trump’s threats to Iran have the region on edge, coming on the heels of a US strike earlier this month in Venezuela – another oil-rich country – which led to the capture of strongman Nicolas Maduro. Should the US or its ally, Israel, intervene, that threatens to draw neighboring countries into the crisis and risk access to the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for energy exporters.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In a famous Indian parable, five blind men are brought to an elephant. Each feels a different part of the animal, and they come to radically different views of what an elephant is. It depended on which parts they touched, from tusk to tail.

The controversy over the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, 37, is a type of political elephant parable.

People focus on only certain parts of the story to support what they want the case to mean.

Critics and supporters of the responsible officer have slowed down videotapes that last, in critical part, for only a few seconds.

The only difference is that, in this modern parable, many are just willfully blind, choosing not to see beyond their own rage.

This week, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) became the personification of rage, spewing profanities about ICE while declaring, shortly after the shooting, that the ICE officer was a murderer.

After immediately declaring the officer’s guilt, Frey spent day two lambasting the federal government for rushing to conclusions and demanding that his people play a role in the investigation.

As for his unhinged, profane diatribe, Frey mocked critics if he “offended their Disney princess ears.”

Frey fulfilled the parable most clearly in his use of statistics. He declared that fifty percent of shootings in the city this year were committed by ICE. He then later admitted that, since it was only Jan. 9, there had been only two shootings. Indeed, he could have argued that ICE was responsible for 100 percent of the shootings in the city on Jan. 7.

Again, the trick is to examine the smallest part of the animal and extrapolate to draw sweeping conclusions.

The recently released videotape from the responsible officer also shows how people will focus on insular elements rather than the “totality of the circumstances,” the standard for such cases established by the Supreme Court.

For example, many supporters of the officer are citing the obstruction and taunting by Good and her wife, who were reportedly working with an anti-ICE group. At one point, Becca Good dares the officer to do something as they blocked the road, telling the officer “Do you want to come at us? I say go and get yourself some lunch, big boy.”

For critics, they have focused on Renee Good’s last words: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you, I’m not mad at any of you.” Whether Good was being peaceful or passive-aggressive, others are clearly very, very mad. They are using her statement to push protesters to the brink of violence.

Democratic leaders declared ICE to be “terrorists” and called for mass protests in the very same city that burned in 2020 after the George Floyd riots. Right on cue, one Black Lives Matter leader suggested that the prosecution of officers in the George Floyd case only occurred because protesters burned down the city. She told protesters to ignore pleas not to do it again. “Let me tell you this. We need justice and we need it now.”

Protesters in other cities chanted “Kristi Noem will hang” and “Save a Life, Kill an ICE.”

In the same presser where he condemned federal officials for jumping to conclusions, Frey not only reaffirmed that Good had been murdered but added that the officer was not actually injured as claimed. “The ICE agent walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips,” he said. “He was not injured. Give me a break. No, he was not ran over. He walked out of there with a hop in his step.”

Few of us have been in Frey’s kitchen, but the latest videotape seems to show something more intense than an encounter with his fridge. The video shows the agent being hit by the vehicle as Good ignores orders to get out of the car, as Becca Good is screaming, “drive, drive, drive.”

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the officer should have discharged his weapon. Flight alone is not grounds for the use of lethal force. However, Good’s actions could also be interpreted as an intentional endangerment of the officer.

At a minimum, it was clearly reckless, as another officer was trying to reach into the vehicle and Good refused to yield to the effort to place her into custody. The Goods forced the confrontation, and Renee Good then escalated the level of danger by speeding toward an officer.

This is why the legal standard requires you to take in the entire elephant, not just insular parts.

While there may still be countervailing facts emerging from the investigation, the governing legal standard clearly favors the officer. It is Good’s actions, not her motivations, that are critical to determining whether excessive force was used. The officer’s cellphone video shows he had a fraction of a second to decide and fired after being struck by the car. (The same officer had been seriously hurt previously after being dragged by a car.)

The Justice Department’s guidances incorporate the standards outlined in past Supreme Court decisions, such as Graham v. Connor (1989). Again, individual elements can be viewed in isolation as favoring or disfavoring the use of force, including the severity of the crime at issue (in this case likely a misdemeanor) and whether the suspect was “attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The guidelines stress that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

This tragedy shows that people watching the same videotapes can come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Take the speed of the vehicle. Some have noted that the car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour before it collided with another vehicle. However, the speed after the shooting of Good is immaterial. The relevant question is the distance and speed with reference to the officer. It was clearly speeding up and immediately struck the officer before Good was shot.

The same is true of those who note how the wheels appear to be turning toward or away from the officer. The fact is, Good struck the officer. That does not mean she intended to do so, but that does not matter. From the officer’s perspective, Good was ignoring orders while speeding toward him from just feet away.

There will likely be civil litigation. Democrats have also called for criminal charges. The arguments on both sides of this controversy show, at most, that the issue is debatable. The officer could be viewed as wrong and still be found to have acted within the scope of his discretion in responding to a threat. Any state effort to charge the officer will be removed to federal court, where he will likely have immunity based on this evidence.

The public would be wise to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side. In an “Age of Rage,” we live in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king. The public must remain clear-eyed and calm as the investigation proceeds in Minneapolis.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”