Won't change a thing, but here it goes, full text from the WP:Link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/pandora-papers-offshore-finance/?itid=hp-top-table-high)
Among others, Jacques Villeneuve (ex Formula 1 racing pilot residing in Monaco), Tony Blair, King Abdullah, Shakira, Elton John. Few Americans in the lot, but Cayman Islands aren't included in this list.
WP are greedy bastards, so can you say what this is?
Leaked data from tax havens.
Immediate implications could be for the presidential elections in Czech Rep. Their current president (he's in the PiS/Orban mold) apparently used shell companies to buy a €15M chateau in France.
But yeah, I expect that not much will come of it, as usual, because the public doesn't care enough, and - let's face it - rich folk rarely suffer real consequences for whatever they do.
For those without WaPo access:
https://www.reuters.com/world/pandora-papers-document-dump-allegedly-links-world-leaders-secret-wealth-2021-10-03/
QuotePandora Papers: Document dump allegedly links world leaders to secret wealth
WASHINGTON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - A massive leak of financial documents was published by several major news organizations on Sunday that allegedly tie world leaders to secret stores of wealth, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis and associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The dump of more than 11.9 million records, amounting to about 2.94 terabytes of data, came five years after the leak known as the "Panama Papers" exposed how money was hidden by the wealthy in ways that law enforcement agencies could not detect.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a Washington, D.C.-based network of reporters and media organizations, said the files are linked to about 35 current and former national leaders, and more than 330 politicians and public officials in 91 countries and territories. It did not say how the files were obtained, and Reuters could not independently verify the allegations or documents detailed by the consortium.
Jordan's King Abdullah, a close ally of the United States, was alleged to have used offshore accounts to spend more than $100 million on luxury homes in the United Kingdom and the United States.
DLA Piper, a London law office representing Abdullah, told the consortium of media outlets that he had "not at any point misused public monies or made any use whatsoever of the proceeds of aid or assistance intended for public use."
The Washington Post, which is part of the consortium, also reported on the case of Svetlana Krivonogikh, a Russian woman who it said became the owner of a Monaco apartment through an offshore company incorporated on the Caribbean island of Tortola in April 2003 just weeks after she gave birth to a girl. At the time, she was in a secret, years-long relationship with Putin, the newspaper said, citing Russian investigative outlet Proekt.
The Post said Krivonogikh, her daughter, who is now 18, and the Kremlin did not respond to requests for comment.
Days ahead of the Czech Republic's Oct. 8-9 parliamentary election, the documents allegedly tied the country's prime minister, Babis, to a secret $22 million estate in a hilltop village near Cannes, France.
Speaking during a television debate on Sunday, Babis denied any wrongdoing.
"The money left a Czech bank, was taxed, it was my money, and returned to a Czech bank," Babis said.
The documents also showed how Indian businessman Anil Ambani and his representatives owned at least 18 offshore companies in Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Cyprus, according to the Indian Express, part of the ICIJ consortium.
Set up between 2007 and 2010, seven of these companies have borrowed and invested at least $1.3 billion, the report said.
In 2020, following a dispute with three Chinese state-controlled banks, Ambani - the chairman of Reliance Group - had told a London court his net worth was zero.
A unnamed lawyer, on behalf of Anil Ambani, told the Express: "Our client is a tax resident of India and has made disclosures to Indian authorities as required to be made in compliance with law. All required considerations were taken into account when making disclosures before the London court. The Reliance Group conducts business globally and for legitimate business and regulatory requirements, companies are incorporated in different jurisdictions."
Ambani did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters seeking comment.
I don't fully get the fascination with rich people who use tax havens. If illegal stuff comes to light then that's interesting, but simply using tax havens just seems like good sense.
Reading stories and coverage of it now. As ever UK's role in tax avoidance and corruption is as the facilitator - with lots of very clever, very nice people working for banks, other financial institutions, law firms, accountants building the infrastructure to enable this. Half of all Russian money laundering, apparently, flows through London at some point <_<
A handy map:
(https://preview.redd.it/qblpz7750er71.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=71f1ea8ba7f58406c0bd6f33a5d71692ddc4808d)
So we have a low-corruption arc from North America over Northern Europe and down through Africa and large parts of the Middle East.
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2021, 01:52:57 AM
I don't fully get the fascination with rich people who use tax havens. If illegal stuff comes to light then that's interesting, but simply using tax havens just seems like good sense.
There are a couple of issues. It's true that taking advantage of what current policies allow you is just good sense, but maybe if the public were truly aware of what current policies allow you, then they would want to change those policies. Another issue is that the "I'm taking advantage of what the law allows me" argument becomes tenuous when used by the people writing the laws. Taking advantage of the loopholes that you yourself had a hand in creating or defending is no longer prudent, now it's just downright corrupt.
Wait no Americans are involved? Well that's nice not to be central to corruption and evil...in this case anyway.
And tacking advantage of the tax laws that apply to you is one thing.
Attempting to circumvent those laws by moving assets out of the jurisdiction of the proper tax laws is often illegal, or at least potentially so. Doing so secretly is almost certainly illegal. I think.
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2021, 08:04:03 AM
There are a couple of issues. It's true that taking advantage of what current policies allow you is just good sense, but maybe if the public were truly aware of what current policies allow you, then they would want to change those policies. Another issue is that the "I'm taking advantage of what the law allows me" argument becomes tenuous when used by the people writing the laws. Taking advantage of the loopholes that you yourself had a hand in creating or defending is no longer prudent, now it's just downright corrupt.
Yes-ish. That seems to have been the Blair story for example - they just bought a property by buying the off-shore SPV that owned the building. This means they don't need to pay property tax. On the other hand that type of off-shore SPV is standard for commercial properties (which this building is, it's rented as the home to Cherie Blair's chambers). The only thing that's interesting about it is that the Blairs bought it and that it (the SPV) was previously owned by Bahrain's Minister of Tourism. There may be some corruption there because of Blair's role in the Middle East but as the building is being used by Cherie and her chambers I'm not actually that sure and if actually the real story is just that when you're dealing with a lot of commercial property in London, the ultimate beneficial owners are people like the Minister of Tourism from Bahrain or a close personal friend of Putin.
The wider stuff has, I think, two angles. One is that it immoral and unethical because it is largely a way of legitimisng a transfer of money from dubious to illegal sources from the people of developing or middle income countries to their politicians and friends, via expensive legal and financial advice from some of the richest and most developed countries in the world. I think that is wrong on a moral level. The other is that I think this money is corrupting to the countries that handle it. It may be fine for Belize to be a sunny place for shady people - it is more problematic if you have people in the UK, the Netherlands, the US with a vested interest in keeping on the flow of money from Russia and Ukraine.
Quote
Wait no Americans are involved? Well that's nice not to be central to corruption and evil...in this case anyway.
Americans are very involved in setting up the trusts the money sits in - interestingly South Dakota in the lead, but also the usual suspects like Delaware and Nevada etc.
/there's a difference between tax evasion and tax shelter
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 08:27:10 AM
Americans are very involved in setting up the trusts the money sits in - interestingly South Dakota in the lead, but also the usual suspects like Delaware and Nevada etc.
Ah well. It was nice will it lasted.
Also the graph is just about politicians, not every person involved in the papers.
Over here one of the first things that got reported was Guardiola's involvement. :ph34r:
If there is one silver lining here, it's that Ukraine finally beat Russia at something. :yeah:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 08:27:10 AM
Americans are very involved in setting up the trusts the money sits in - interestingly South Dakota in the lead.
South Dakota has no usury laws.
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2021, 08:04:03 AM
but maybe if the public were truly aware of what current policies allow you, then they would want to change those policies.
Hope springs eternal.
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2021, 06:14:47 AM
So we have a low-corruption arc from North America over Northern Europe and down through Africa and large parts of the Middle East.
It may mean they are elsewhere. Not all of these offshore tax heavens are included.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 02:53:04 AM
Reading stories and coverage of it now. As ever UK's role in tax avoidance and corruption is as the facilitator - with lots of very clever, very nice people working for banks, other financial institutions, law firms, accountants building the infrastructure to enable this. Half of all Russian money laundering, apparently, flows through London at some point <_<
Some US states too are in this, like South Dakota. It's apparently used as a heaven for some foreign politicians to anonymously buy properties in the US.
I find it curious the media's main focus is on the blairs comparatively minor tax dodginess post premiership than the much shadier stuff about dark money in politics.
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2021, 08:32:33 PM
I find it curious the media's main focus is on the blairs comparatively minor tax dodginess post premiership than the much shadier stuff about dark money in politics.
He's the most prominent Brit so will be the first story. The last couple of days in the Guardian have been on Tory donors and Lords - but they're not that famous. All four British stories at the miinute are on the Guardian - and the Guardian and the BBC are, I think, the only British outlets who are in on the project so have access to the leak, so everyone else will be a day or two behind them.
And aren't they part and parcel? Tony Blair - since his premiership - has increased his net worth to allegedly around £50million+ - with a lot of that in a property portfolio. Cherie is obviously a successful QC so she will be bringing in a fair chunk too. And his son's edtech start-up is apparently worth £100millions (clients including Citi, KPMG, Westminster council etc).
He was, probably until the Obamas, the best paid speaker in the world. He works as an advisor for various investment banks, financial service institutions, a Korean firm that specialises in exploiting Iraqi oilfields - not to mention his advice on "human rights" or "pro-business reforms" for multiple autocrats who are also in the papers such as leaders in Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. I think Blair is the model of the money in politics - and you get it when you retire and don't have to report on your income, if you did a good job.
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2021, 08:32:33 PM
I find it curious the media's main focus is on the blairs comparatively minor tax dodginess post premiership than the much shadier stuff about dark money in politics.
they talked a lot about Jordan's King. But with barely 100M$ in there, he's kinda poor. I mean, compared with some others who have like 2 billion$ in there, that's nothing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 08:57:34 PM
I think Blair is the model of the money in politics - and you get it when you retire and don't have to report on your income, if you did a good job.
with a guaranteed no show job in a prominent lawfirm or construction company, our Liberal Party politicians are certainly a bunch of amateurs.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2021, 04:37:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 02:53:04 AM
Reading stories and coverage of it now. As ever UK's role in tax avoidance and corruption is as the facilitator - with lots of very clever, very nice people working for banks, other financial institutions, law firms, accountants building the infrastructure to enable this. Half of all Russian money laundering, apparently, flows through London at some point <_<
Some US states too are in this, like South Dakota. It's apparently used as a heaven for some foreign politicians to anonymously buy properties in the US.
Pretty convenient. Once you convince everyone that your fictional state is real, you can use it for all sorts of nefarious purposes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 08:57:34 PM.
And aren't they part and parcel? Tony Blair - since his premiership - has increased his net worth to allegedly around £50million+ - with a lot of that in a property portfolio. Cherie is obviously a successful QC so she will be bringing in a fair chunk too. And his son's edtech start-up is apparently worth £100millions (clients including Citi, KPMG, Westminster council etc).
He was, probably until the Obamas, the best paid speaker in the world. He works as an advisor for various investment banks, financial service institutions, a Korean firm that specialises in exploiting Iraqi oilfields - not to mention his advice on "human rights" or "pro-business reforms" for multiple autocrats who are also in the papers such as leaders in Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. I think Blair is the model of the money in politics - and you get it when you retire and don't have to report on your income, if you did a good job.
This gets a lot of criticism but you know, in itself I don't see anything too bad about this.
He isn't involved in politics anymore so why not make money as a regular guy.
The only dodgy part is the potential for iffy trades of doing certain things whilst in government on the promise of pay offs down the line or even having your decisions influenced by the mere thought of future opportunities.
It should be tightly monitored and scrutinised for sure but making millions after politics? Fair play to him.
Those getting involved in this sort of business whilst still in politics now... That's a different matter
Quote from: Tyr on October 05, 2021, 03:27:56 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2021, 08:57:34 PM.
And aren't they part and parcel? Tony Blair - since his premiership - has increased his net worth to allegedly around £50million+ - with a lot of that in a property portfolio. Cherie is obviously a successful QC so she will be bringing in a fair chunk too. And his son's edtech start-up is apparently worth £100millions (clients including Citi, KPMG, Westminster council etc).
He was, probably until the Obamas, the best paid speaker in the world. He works as an advisor for various investment banks, financial service institutions, a Korean firm that specialises in exploiting Iraqi oilfields - not to mention his advice on "human rights" or "pro-business reforms" for multiple autocrats who are also in the papers such as leaders in Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. I think Blair is the model of the money in politics - and you get it when you retire and don't have to report on your income, if you did a good job.
This gets a lot of criticism but you know, in itself I don't see anything too bad about this.
He isn't involved in politics anymore so why not make money as a regular guy.
The only dodgy part is the potential for iffy trades of doing certain things whilst in government on the promise of pay offs down the line or even having your decisions influenced by the mere thought of future opportunities.
It should be tightly minored and scrutinised for sure but making millions after politics? Fair play to him.
Those getting involved in this sort of business whilst still in politics now... That's a different matter
Making money after politics based on your notoriety is totally fine.
Using that money to buy some corporation registered in a tax heaven and dodge local taxes that way is a different matter. Especially so as you can make all kind of shady deals once it's there.
Quote from: viper37 on October 05, 2021, 09:53:17 AM
Making money after politics based on your notoriety is totally fine.
I don't think it is, at least not unconditionally. It strikes me as the type of corruption that people in the future would be surprised was so openly tolerated. I think a lot of such speeches and appearance fees are just delayed bribe payments, and same goes for giving board seats in companies that dealt with the government.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2021, 10:32:54 AM
I don't think it is, at least not unconditionally. It strikes me as the type of corruption that people in the future would be surprised was so openly tolerated. I think a lot of such speeches and appearance fees are just delayed bribe payments, and same goes for giving board seats in companies that dealt with the government.
Yeah my take is almost the opposite of Viper's.
The actual thing the Blairs did was buy an SPV that owned a building - that'll be the only asset that SPV has and it's a way of paying the stamp duty on shares (which is about 0.5-1.5%) instead of the stamp duty on commercial property (up to 5%). It is standard practice in commercial real estate rather than anything particularly innovative or a heavily engineered tax scam. So I would every office block and every hotel in London will be owned by an SPV for that reason. It is striking that it was owned by a Bahraini minister, but the flipside it's a barristers' chambers (used by Cherie Blair's chambers) and it's located in Gray's Inn like loads of other chambers so it makes sense as a legit commercial purchase rather than a favour.
The other stuff though - I think getting employed by investment banks, financial institutions, dictators etc is either a reward for services rendered or a way of getting access to Tony Blair's/any other senior politician's contacts. I think that's how corruption works in the UK rather than up-front payments and politicians are often paid to join the board of the very companies that facilitate London as a centre for global corruption. South Dakota has lots of trusts, I believe in terms of channeling money the number of companies registered in London is second only to Lebanon.
I can sort of see the speech thing just because I've seen the rates executives pay to have a speech from sportspeople, football managers, former miliitary folks who've segued into inspirational speaking. I can see Tony Blair being a very compelling - if terrifying - speaker on leadership. It's the £100 grand to hear John Major or Theresa May that I don't really understand :lol:
If we prevent them from working after they retire from political life, we will dissuade younger people of joining politics. The pay sucks, the retirement fund is about average and there's no job security.
An MP elected for 2 mandates culminating in a total of 6 years without the possibility to work after that? Unless you're rich and 55 years old, who would want to risk that?
There can be a time limit on how much time you can spend without contacting (as in lobbying) your former comrades at arms or bureaucrats (ex: I think in my own contract, I can't do business with the city for 2 years after I leave, to avoid appearances of conflict of interests), but I don't think it's realistic to prevent a well viewed politician from joining a big firm.
I mean, retired politicians or political advisers are often hired by a government of the same party/affiliation at high costs (like, 800$-1000$/hrs) for some special consultation job or another. That is more worrying for me than the dude who charges 5000$/hrs to be heard talking about anything he might not even be a specialist of.