In December 2025, Thai authorities launched a sweeping enforcement operation that made international headlines. Among the central figures named was Yim Leak, a Cambodian businessman whom the media quickly labelled a fugitive, a scam kingpin, and a Thai national whose citizenship was being revoked.

The Anti-Money Laundering Office has since frozen more than 20 billion baht, roughly $580 million, in assets connected to Mr. Yim and his wife Veereenyah Yim.      No criminal charges have been filed.

Yim Leak’s Bangkok-based legal team at Dentons Pisut & Partners, one of the largest international law firms, issued public statements in December 2025 and February 2026 challenging the factual basis of the media coverage. Several of those corrections are independently verifiable. Below is a review of the most widely repeated claims and what the record shows.

Claim: Yim Leak is a Thai national who fled the country

This has been one of the most damaging claims in the coverage. The Thai government publicly stated that Yim Leak’s Thai nationality would be revoked. The framing implied he fled to avoid prosecution.

According to Dentons Pisut, Mr. Yim has never held Thai citizenship or possessed a Thai passport. He is a Cambodian national, which the firm says is verifiable through Ministry of Interior records. Documented travel records show that Yim Leak departed Thailand on June 19, 2025, and his wife departed on October 11, 2025. Both departures took place months before the December raids. The legal team argues that describing someone as a fugitive when they left the country months before any enforcement action is inconsistent with the documented timeline.

Claim: He was named in the U.S. Dismantle Foreign Scam Syndicates Act

This claim appeared in Thai media following a government press conference in which officials said they had been tipped off by the FBI. What was not widely reported is that Yim Leak’s name was removed from the legislation (H.R. 5490) on the same day the Thai government cited it at the press conference. This is publicly verifiable through the U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository. The inclusion of his name in an early draft, followed by its removal, is materially different from the impression left by the press conference, which treated the original inclusion as confirmation of guilt. The legal team notes that the episode was publicly framed as a U.S. tip-off, despite the fact that U.S. legislators removed his name from the Act on the same day.

Claim: He is associated with Chen Zhi’s scam network

Media coverage repeatedly placed Yim Leak alongside Chen Zhi, a figure at the center of the Thai government’s anti-scam narrative, creating an impression of partnership or criminal collaboration. Dentons Pisut has formally denied any business relationship between Yim Leak and this individual. According to the firm, no evidence of a direct business relationship between Mr. Yim and such a person has been presented publicly by any authority to date.

Claim: AMLO found criminal activity in his accounts

According to Dentons Pisut, AMLO conducted an investigation in 2024 into virtually the same assets connected to the same family. The firm says AMLO confirmed at the conclusion of that review that the assets did not relate to criminal activities, and that the assets were returned. The current proceedings, which target virtually the same asset base, represent what the legal team describes as a reactivation of claims that were previously examined and dismissed by the same agency now pursuing them.

Claim: The 20 billion baht forfeiture reflects 20 billion baht in criminal proceeds

The scale of the freeze, now exceeding $580 million, has been widely reported as though it reflects the scale of the underlying criminal activity. The actual transaction at the origin of the case, according to his legal team, was a currency exchange transfer worth approximately $165,000, processed through a regulated operator’s pooled Thai clearing account.

Pooled-account settlement is how the majority of cross-border currency exchanges are conducted in Southeast Asia. A business converting dollars from Cambodia into Thai baht in Thailand typically uses a regulated operator that maintains a pooled clearing system, through which dozens of unrelated parties’ money are “pooled” to transfer money into the end recipient’s account. Industry estimates suggest that 40 to 55 percent of cross-border funds entering Thailand move through these structures, which are widely used because they allow large sums to move faster than a traditional SWIFT wire.

When authorities trace funds backward through a co-mingled pooling account and treat a downstream recipient as if they were directly linked to suspicious upstream deposits, the legal team argues, innocent businesses and individuals can be swept into aggressive asset-freeze actions simply because their transactions passed through the same regulated pooled system. According to the defense, the gap between a $165,000 currency exchange and a $580 million freeze does not establish that $580 million in criminal proceeds were found and may instead reflect the methodology of the tracing. The legal team contends that this approach produces outcomes that are inconsistent with Thai and international law, and that the resulting freeze is disproportionate to the underlying transaction.

What the record suggests

Questions have also been raised about how the case has been handled procedurally. According to Dentons Pisut, AMLO’s board resolutions and detailed property inventories appeared in the Thai press before defense counsel had received formal notice of the proceedings. The legal team has also stated that AMLO summoned information regarding the balance in the couple’s six-year-old son’s savings account. According to the defense team’s reading of the proceedings, the child could face forfeiture of his savings and potential legal consequences if he does not respond to the authorities’ request to report to their office. If accurate, legal observers say this would raise serious questions about the proportionality of the enforcement measures being applied in the case.

None of the above is an argument for or against Yim Leak’s innocence. That is a matter for the Thai Civil Court, where the case will soon be heard. But for international media outlets that have reported this story primarily through the lens of government press conferences and unnamed official sources, the factual record compiled by his legal team, most recently outlined in a statement published on AP News, raises questions that deserve the same prominence as the original allegations.

Yim Leak is the chairman of BIC Group, a Southeast Asian conglomerate. “Yim Leak reaffirms his commitment to cooperating fully with Thai authorities through proper legal channels,” the most recent statement reads. “He expresses his hope that the process will adhere to the principle that individuals are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.”

NEW YORK — Snowflake Inc. shares soared more than 35 percent on Thursday, trading near $236 after the cloud data platform company reported robust first-quarter results fueled by artificial intelligence demand and announced a major partnership with Amazon Web Services, reinforcing its position as a key player in the data and AI infrastructure boom.

The dramatic move came after Snowflake reported fiscal first-quarter revenue of $1.39 billion, exceeding Wall Street expectations, with product revenue reaching $1.334 billion, up 34 percent year-over-year. The company also raised its full-year revenue outlook, citing accelerating AI adoption across its customer base. Analysts widely view the results as a clear inflection point for the company, strengthening the case for buying shares in the current environment.

Snowflake CEO Sridhar Ramaswamy described the quarter as a “clear inflection point,” highlighting net revenue retention of 126 percent and 779 customers now spending more than $1 million annually. The company further boosted investor confidence by announcing a five-year, $6 billion deal with AWS for advanced processors to power agentic AI workloads.

Strong Earnings Beat Drives Optimism

Snowflake’s results demonstrated robust demand for its data cloud platform, particularly products like Snowflake Intelligence and Cortex that help enterprises harness AI. Adjusted earnings per share came in ahead of consensus estimates, while consumption-based revenue models continued to show healthy growth as customers expanded usage.

The earnings beat triggered a sharp short squeeze and broad buying across growth-oriented investors. Pre-market trading saw shares open significantly higher, with volume spiking as retail and institutional buyers piled in. By mid-morning, the stock had posted one of its largest single-day percentage gains in recent memory.

Analysts reacted positively. Multiple firms raised price targets following the report, with several citing improved visibility into AI-related growth. The consensus 12-month price target now sits around $230–$250, though some bullish forecasts reach as high as $500, implying substantial further upside from current levels after Thursday’s surge.

AI Momentum and Strategic Partnerships

The AWS partnership stands out as a major catalyst. The multi-year deal provides Snowflake with dedicated infrastructure for advanced AI workloads, enhancing its ability to serve large enterprise customers seeking scalable data and AI solutions. This collaboration strengthens Snowflake’s competitive position against rivals in the rapidly expanding cloud data market.

Snowflake has benefited from the broader AI boom, as companies across industries invest heavily in data platforms capable of handling massive datasets for training and inference. Its architecture, which separates storage and compute, has proven particularly attractive for AI use cases requiring flexibility and cost efficiency.

The company’s focus on consumption-based pricing has allowed it to capture growing usage without forcing large upfront commitments, contributing to high retention rates and expanding customer spend.

Valuation and Investment Thesis

Even after Thursday’s surge, many analysts argue Snowflake remains reasonably valued given its growth trajectory. The stock trades at a premium to traditional software companies but aligns with high-growth AI infrastructure peers. Strong free cash flow generation and a solid balance sheet provide additional downside protection.

For investors considering buying Snowflake stock, the case rests on structural tailwinds in data management and AI. The company’s platform has become foundational for enterprises modernizing their data estates, positioning it for sustained multi-year growth.

Potential buyers may view the post-earnings pullback (if any) as an attractive entry point. Long-term holders benefit from Snowflake’s technological leadership and exposure to one of the strongest secular trends in technology.

Those leaning toward selling cite the elevated valuation and execution risks in a competitive cloud market. However, the overwhelming analyst consensus remains bullish, with the majority maintaining Buy ratings.

Diversification is recommended. While Snowflake offers high-quality exposure to AI and cloud computing, pairing it with more defensive holdings can help manage volatility inherent in growth stocks.

Broader Cloud and AI Sector Context

Snowflake’s performance reflects strength across the cloud infrastructure sector. Major hyperscalers and data platform providers have reported robust AI-related demand, validating the multi-year investment thesis for the space.

The company continues to face competition from established players like Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as specialized rivals. However, its neutral, multi-cloud approach has helped it win customers seeking flexibility across different providers.

As enterprises increase spending on data platforms to support generative AI initiatives, Snowflake is well-positioned to capture a significant share of this expanding market. Analysts expect continued acceleration in consumption as more workloads migrate to its platform.

Outlook for Remainder of 2026

Management raised full-year guidance following the strong start to fiscal 2027, signaling confidence in sustained momentum. Key upcoming catalysts include progress on product innovation, major customer wins and further AI-related partnerships.

Risks include potential slowdowns in enterprise IT spending, intensified competition or broader macroeconomic headwinds. Geopolitical factors affecting technology supply chains could also introduce volatility.

Overall, analysts project strong revenue and earnings growth for Snowflake through 2026 and beyond. The company’s ability to execute on its AI roadmap will be critical in sustaining investor enthusiasm.

As of late May 2026, Snowflake represents a high-conviction opportunity for growth-oriented investors. Thursday’s earnings-driven surge validates the market’s optimism around its positioning in the AI data economy.

Investors should monitor quarterly results closely, particularly metrics around consumption growth, net retention and large customer additions. Professional financial advice is recommended before making investment decisions in this dynamic sector.

Demand for life coaching has climbed steadily for a decade, and the route to success is more accessible than ever. Flexible training by , online delivery and a growing appetite for personal development support – on paper, it’s an attractive proposition for anyone considering a career change or a business they can run on their own terms.

What tends to get glossed over is that coaching suits a particular kind of person, and that person isn’t everyone. The gap between wanting to help people and being well-suited to do it professionally is wider than most people expect. Before you start comparing course fees, The Coaching Academy – the UK’s leading provider of life coaching training – offers insights into the desirable skills and qualities that make great coaches – as well as some less desirable traits.

The advice instinct will work against you

Most people drawn to coaching arrive with the same impulse: they want to fix things. They’re the friend who gives good advice, the colleague people bring their problems to, the person who spots solutions before anyone else in the room. These are useful qualities in many jobs, but in coaching they tend to get in the way.

A life coach’s job is to help clients find their own answers – not to shortcut that process with better ones. Sessions are built around questions rather than guidance, and the coach’s role is to hold the space open rather than fill it.

Some people explore the Life Coaching route only to discover that what they really want is to be a consultant, a mentor, or an advisor – all entirely valid careers, but not the same thing. Coaching rewards people who find genuine satisfaction in watching someone else work something out. That specific satisfaction, the kind that doesn’t require you to have been the clever one in the room, is hard to fake over a long career.

Can you be present with someone who’s struggling – without taking it home?

Clients rarely turn up in a neutral state. Life coaching tends to attract people at transition points: redundancy, divorce, burnout, a general sense that something’s gone wrong or that something better should have happened by now. Emotional weight is simply part of what the work involves.

Good coaches can sit with that without being knocked sideways by it. They’re not detached – detachment tends to come across – but they have enough emotional steadiness that the client feels held rather than managed. That’s a real skill, and it’s not the same as being a good listener at the pub.

There’s also a boundary worth pointing out: coaching is not therapy, and it doesn’t try to be. It works forward, building on where someone wants to go rather than excavating where they’ve been. When a client needs something that sits outside that frame – genuine mental health support, for instance – a competent coach recognises it and says so. That takes confidence, but it’s one of the more important calls the job requires.

Think about your last few conversations with people going through difficulties. Did you feel energised or exhausted afterwards? Both are valid – but one of them points more naturally towards this kind of work.

Instincts that can’t be trained

Experienced coaches often say the same thing about their best sessions: they noticed something. A slight hesitation before an answer, a word someone kept returning to, or the difference between what a client said they wanted in week one and what they were really after by week four.

That quality of attention – the kind that picks up on what’s happening beneath the surface of a conversation – tends to be something people either bring with them or don’t. It can be developed through practice, but its raw form is usually present quite early. People who have it tend to find other people genuinely fascinating – not in a performed, therapist-nodding kind of way, but genuinely curious about what goes on in other people’s heads.

If conversations about other people’s interior lives leave you cold, or if you find yourself waiting for your turn to speak, coaching will probably feel like hard work in a way that eventually shows.

You don’t need to have it all sorted (But you do need to have looked)

There’s a version of the “become a coach” story that goes: I turned my struggle into a superpower. This story isn’t wrong, but it is incomplete. Plenty of coaches find their way to the work through their own difficult experiences – redundancy, a difficult relationship, a health scare that reset their priorities – but what made them effective wasn’t the struggle itself, but the fact that they’d genuinely examined it.

Coaches who haven’t done that work tend to bring their unexamined material into sessions in ways they can’t see. Their own patterns, the stories they tell themselves about why people get stuck, the kinds of progress they find most satisfying – all of it bleeds in. Good training catches some of it, though self-awareness tends to catch more.

This isn’t about having a perfect record of personal growth. It’s about having taken the difficult questions seriously, being able to sit with answers you don’t like, and knowing roughly where your edges are.

People need to trust you quickly – and that trust has to be earned honestly

A coaching relationship moves fast, with clients expected to be open about things they may not have told many other people – often within the first couple of sessions. For that to happen, trust has to be established early, and it has to feel real.

Some of that comes from warmth and presence, qualities that are hard to teach in a classroom. Some of it comes from competence – clients feel safer when a coach is clearly operating within a professional framework, knows what they’re doing, and has been trained and accredited properly.

This is also where confidentiality becomes non-negotiable. What a client shares in a session goes nowhere, and that has to be an absolute rather than just professional habit. People sense whether a coach means it.

Accreditation isn’t just a certificate on your wall

Life coaching in the UK is unregulated – which means anyone can use the title – and it’s worth understanding what that means from two directions.

As a potential coach, it means you’ll be entering a market where your credibility has to be built actively rather than assumed. ICF accreditation – the International Coaching Federation is the most widely recognised professional body – gives you a framework that clients and employers recognise. It also means your training was substantive: supervised hours, observed practice, assessed competencies.

As someone weighing up training options, it’s a useful filter. Programmes that deliver a certificate after a weekend are not the same as those requiring months of supervised practice. The difference matters to clients, as it will to you once you’re in sessions and things get complicated.

So, do you have what it takes?

Most people reading this will fall somewhere on a spectrum. Some will feel genuinely confirmed – they recognise themselves in the curious listener, they’ve done the reflection, they’re drawn to the work for reasons that go well beyond wanting to be helpful. If that’s you, proper training is a logical and rewarding next step.

Others will find that parts of it don’t quite fit, and that’s worth knowing too. Discovering that your instincts run more toward advising than asking, or that you’d find it difficult to step back and let someone else do the thinking, isn’t a failure – it’s useful self-knowledge that saves time and points you toward work that will suit you better.

The third group, probably the largest, will sit somewhere in the middle. Coaching is a craft, and while a natural affinity for it helps, the skills themselves can be taught and developed over time through practice, feedback and structured training. The Coaching Academy has helped over 14,000 people find their route into coaching since 1999 – most of them ordinary people who weren’t sure they had what it takes until they started.

Let’s close by returning to the question posed at the start of this article – do you have what it takes to be a Life Coach? Truthfully, with time, training and effort, most people who think to ask this question of themselves probably do – they just need the space and resources to unlock their potential.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Operator

[Interpreted] Forward-looking statements and non-IFRS measures. Today’s presentation may contain forward-looking statements, which are any predictions, projections or other statements about future events based on current expectations and assumptions.

Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements because of a variety of risks and uncertainties, known and unknown. You can consult BRP’s public disclosures on SEDAR+, EDGAR and VRP’s website, including its management’s discussion and analysis for the fiscal year ended on January 31, 2026, and in other continuous disclosure materials filed from time to time with Canadian Securities regulatory authorities and the Securities and Exchange Commission for a description of the risks, uncertainties and other factors that could influence actual results. BRP does not undertake any duty to update forward-looking statements.

In addition, some of the financial measures discussed over the course of this presentation are not recognized measures under IFRS. You can refer to BRP’s management’s discussion and analysis for the fiscal year ended on January 31, 2026, and for the first quarter of the fiscal year ending January 31, 2027, for a complete definition and complete reconciliation of such measures to the IFRS measures.

[Presentation]

Pierre Beaudoin

[Interpreted] Good morning. Welcome to BRP’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders. My name is Pierre Beaudoin, and I am the Chair of the Board of Directors of BRP. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank you for being here today. If you will allow me, I would like to first address our English-speaking audience, and then I will continue in French.

Good morning. Welcome to BRP’s Annual Meeting

For Ovik Mkrtchyan, the lawsuit he has brought with Gor Investment against Straife is not only about money. It is also about reputation, family harm and what he describes as an effort to bring transparency to an alleged campaign that damaged his business and placed “at least thousands of false publications online.”

In a statement, Mkrtchyan said: “The events described in the complaint caused profound and lasting harms to me and my family that no amount of money can fully repair. In addition, the ongoing smear campaign against me has now placed at least thousands of false publications online in an effort to cause further harm. By seeking justice in the courts, I hope to bring appropriate transparency to what happened and to ensure that others do not suffer in the way that we did.”

Mkrtchyan added: “I stand behind the lawsuit and there is nothing I wish to add to the detailed complaint, as those matters will be addressed through the legal process.”

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, names Straife, a corporate intelligence firm with a Washington presence; its chief executive, Joseph Fleming; and Stephen Payne, a Washington lobbyist who, according to the complaint, has marketed his Washington connections and experience working in the George W. Bush White House. The plaintiffs bring claims including defamation, tortious interference, injurious falsehood and civil conspiracy.

At the heart of the case is Mkrtchyan’s allegation that people he once dealt with as advisers or associates later helped his adversaries damage him. According to the complaint, Straife and Fleming advised Mkrtchyan and Gor from 2022 on sensitive strategic and risk matters, receiving more than $100,000 in fees. Payne, who allegedly worked with Mkrtchyan and his companies from around 2016, is said to have introduced him to Fleming and Straife.

According to the complaint, the dispute arose from what the plaintiffs describe as a sanctions-related demand. The complaint alleges that Uzbek businessman Ulugbek Shadmanov and his team demanded that Mkrtchyan use his US relationships to help place two Uzbek nationals, Dmitry Lee and Komil Allamjonov, on the US sanctions list in order to prompt their prosecution in Uzbekistan. Mkrtchyan claims he refused, saying he viewed the demand as unlawful.

The plaintiffs allege that the consequences were severe. After the refusal, the complaint says Shadmanov began what the plaintiffs characterise as a campaign of retaliation. The complaint alleges that Mkrtchyan’s projects in Uzbekistan stalled, official support weakened and counterparties became reluctant to proceed.

In January 2024, according to the complaint, Mkrtchyan and his daughter were detained by officers of Uzbekistan’s State Security Service. His daughter was released, but he remained in detention for several months. The complaint alleges he was confined in harsh conditions, repeatedly interrogated, denied access to medication and pressured to confess to crimes he denied. He was released on April 12, 2024, and the complaint says official records confirm he was cleared of all charges.

The lawsuit says the damage continued after his release. According to the complaint, Straife and Fleming had proposed a course of action to secure Mkrtchyan’s release that Gor rejected on legal grounds. After the relationship ended, the plaintiffs allege Straife and Fleming agreed to assist Shadmanov and United Cement Group, or UCG, in interfering with Mkrtchyan’s projects, contracts and reputation.

One of the most detailed allegations involves an unsigned multi-page report titled “Report on the Nefarious Activities of Uktam Aripov.” The complaint alleges Straife and Fleming prepared the document, which focused on Aripov, an associate of Mkrtchyan, but also included allegations about Mkrtchyan and his wider network. The plaintiffs allege the report was left unsigned in order to conceal Straife’s and Fleming’s involvement in preparing it.

According to the complaint, former US ambassador Stephen Akard later sent the report, together with a cover letter, to Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and Uzbekistan’s ambassador in Washington, Furqat Sidikov, on August 16, 2024. The plaintiffs allege this placed damaging claims before senior Uzbek officials while obscuring Straife’s role in preparing the material.

The complaint places particular emphasis on Payne’s alleged role. According to the complaint, in April 2024, while Mkrtchyan was detained, Payne wrote in support of his release, attesting to his innocence and blaming Shadmanov and UCG. The complaint says Payne later reversed course after Fleming approached him and persuaded him to change his position.

The plaintiffs allege Payne acted at Fleming’s and UCG’s direction when he sent an August 23, 2024 letter retracting his earlier support. According to the complaint, that letter set out allegations against Mkrtchyan that included references to purported links to Russian organised crime, extortion and unethical conduct—allegations Mkrtchyan denies and which the complaint describes as false.

The complaint alleges Payne worked with Fleming to draft the letter, copied Fleming on related correspondence, requested confidentiality and separately contacted Ambassador Sidikov in Washington in connection with the letter. The plaintiffs allege that Payne’s reversal was, in their characterisation, connected to subsequent lobbying and consulting arrangements.

The complaint also alleges that Payne later provided information about Mkrtchyan, Gor and Aripov to a journalist, with the aim, the plaintiffs say, of encouraging publication of material aligned with the August 2024 letter and the Straife report. The complaint states that the journalist responded sceptically to one of the items Payne had sent.

For Mkrtchyan and Gor, the complaint alleges that the reputational campaign had commercial consequences. The complaint says the defendants’ alleged conduct helped disrupt major projects and damage relationships involving companies including BASF, CC7 and CITIC. The plaintiffs claim CITIC had indicated a willingness to invest more than $1.5 billion in one of the projects and that total losses exceed $1 billion.

The lawsuit also points to a later retraction. On October 29, 2025, Akard and his firm wrote to Uzbekistan’s president and ambassador retracting the August 2024 letter and report. According to the complaint, Akard said the material had been sent at UCG’s request, that the report had been prepared for UCG by Straife, and that neither he nor his firm had independently verified or could substantiate the allegations.

The allegations concerning Payne also come against the backdrop of a separate arbitration involving NRCO Engineering S.A., a company owned by Mkrtchyan, Payne and Linden Energy. In a May 1, 2026 Final Award, an ICDR arbitrator found in NRCO’s favour, and NRCO has petitioned the Southern District of Texas to confirm the award and enter judgment for more than $2.19 million.

In the award, the arbitrator examined Payne’s August 2024 letter to the President of Uzbekistan, in which Payne retracted his earlier letter supporting Mkrtchyan. The award states that the August letter included allegations against Mkrtchyan and Aripov, including alleged ties to Russian organised crime, threats and extortion. The arbitrator found that Payne and Logan Somera, who the award says assisted in drafting the letter, did not produce credible evidence supporting the assertions in the August retraction letter. The award also found that Payne actively attempted to conceal the existence of the letter from Mkrtchyan and Aripov.

The allegations in the D.C. complaint remain unproven. The defendants will have the opportunity to contest the complaint, challenge the plaintiffs’ account, and present their own evidence. The separate NRCO arbitration award has already made findings against Payne and Linden in a different dispute, but it does not determine the defendants’ liability in the D.C. proceedings.