Support NeoGAF

[ittoryu]

"Panama Papers: David Cameron's father linked to Mossack ...
Metro-1 hour ago
Tory MPs, donors and David Cameron's late father are among scores of politicians believed to be among those linked to the Panama Papers.
David Cameron's dad and top Tories named in leaked 'Panama ...
Mirror.co.uk-8 hours ago
Former Tory MPs, party donors and David Cameron's late father ...
Daily Mail-7 hours ago
David Cameron's father 'among offshore accounts leak'
PoliticsHome.com-2 hours ago
PANAMA PAPERS: Colossal document leak links David Cameron's ...
Daily Star-1 hour ago
David Cameron's father and senior Tory figures named in 'Panama ...
In-Depth-The Independent-4 minutes ago"

This is kind of funny.



"I'm shocked, shocked to find that tax dodging is going on in here!"

Oh crap, I need to start having more newspaper and newsite rather than just following The Guardian and the BBC...

 

[Funky Papa]

Just as expected, the wacky part of the nu left is already circling the wagons in social media channels, putting the leaks on blast for being a ploy to damage Putin's reputation.

 

[Minamu]

One of Sweden's biggest banks are one of the top banks in this mess. They're even scrambling for damage control on facebook now, answering people's statuses where they are mentioned with tags xD Defending their sorry asses (saying they're all legit and they have stopped the illegal shit many years ago, which our newspapers have kind of debunked already). Fucking sad :/

 

[ClosingADoor]

One of Sweden's biggest banks are one of the top banks in this mess. They're even scrambling for damage control on facebook now, answering people's statuses where they are mentioned with tags xD Defending their sorry asses (saying they're all legit and they have stopped the illegal shit many years ago, which our newspapers have kind of debunked already). Fucking sad :/

What kind of excuse is that? "Yeah, we were doing illegal shit and helping people with tax evasion, but we totally stopped that years ago, so it's all OK." No, even if you stopped, you should be fined for that bullshit you did years ago. And nobody believes a bank stops illegal stuff until they are caught. And even after that they will try to continue, but hide it better.

 

[RedSparrows]

Just as expected, the wacky part of the nu left is already circling the wagons in social media channels, putting the leaks on blast for being a ploy to damage Putin's reputation.

I find it absolutely incredible. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

 

[tri_willy]

I have to wonder about the ATO reaction, it seems they rushed to a press release saying, in effect "on it", rather quicker than they actually will trouble people with slippery accountants and lawyers on retainer.

ATO: we've information you are the beneficial owner of a company in Panama
Taxpayer: oh yeah, perhaps, I've complex affairs, however it was never used.
ATO: we think it may have been
Taxpayer: prove it.

So then at that point, what next?
Yeah they can place the taxpayer on a shit list and watch them more carefully they can come in an do a desk audit (even though that seems a rare thing now) but if the artful dodger didn't do anything really traceable onshore I don't see it as being much of a problem for them. It isn't like the banks and Panama are going to cough anything up more easily today than they would have yesterday.

It's of course a huge problem for public figures, politicians, and so on. Like the PM in Iceland.

the issue with the ATO trying to nab people for tax avoidance is that over the past 18-24 months, those 4,400 redundancies killed a lot of the skilled knowledge that certain staff had in tracking down some of these non-compliant individuals, companies etc. funnily enough, since some of these skilled operatives knew how the system was working, these guys ended up working for some of the big accounting firms and using their knowledge to help clients minimise their tax payable.

we do have an area who deal with some of these non-complying dodgers, however my guess is that a great deal of work would be red-taped... not to mention who we have to answer to... ato commissioner answers to the treasury... and who's the boss of the treasury??? the government aka PM.

the only people who gonna get away with this crap are the supposed donors of the LNP

 

[Minamu]

What kind of excuse is that? "Yeah, we were doing illegal shit and helping people with tax evasion, but we totally stopped that years ago, so it's all OK." No, even if you stopped, you should be fined for that bullshit you did years ago. And nobody believes a bank stops illegal stuff until they are caught. And even after that they will try to continue, but hide it better.

I know, right? :lol It's crazy. Iirc, the papers show that the bank's activities have not changed much at all during the last few years that they say they've changed their policies. In fact, they're ranked 11th among 14000 banks, and they have the balls to say that they haven't done anything wrong? They'e been clean since 2009 according to themselves but the papers show that they're ranked 6th as of 2015 when it comes to handling off shore stuff. Of course, not every off shore account is used for illegal purposes (apparently) but again, rank 11. Crooks, and they're getting a ton of flak in the press today, people threatening of leaving them in droves.

Edit: The bank is mentioned almost 11000 times in the leaked documents. No Swedish bank is safe it seems, my own is at 700+ but no one is even close to 11000.

 

[Lord Panda]

Time for the Punisher to get to work.

 

[Drazgul]

 

[jelly]

Tin foil hat off to you.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Haven't had the chance to read this, but is it tax evasion or tax avoidance gone too far?

 

[darkinstinct]

Haven't had the chance to read this, but is it tax evasion or tax avoidance gone too far?

More like leak gone too far. Using offshore companies and even using them to move billions around is nothing illegal. It can simply be privacy. And there are many more legal use cases for offshore companies.

 

[anonymous_abc]

More like leak gone too far. Using offshore companies and even using them to move billions around is nothing illegal. It can simply be privacy. And there are many more legal use cases for offshore companies.

While technically true, let us not pretend that the majority of people who employ these methods are not at least trying to obfuscate some less than savoury dealings.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

More like leak gone too far. Using offshore companies and even using them to move billions around is nothing illegal. It can simply be privacy. And there are many more legal use cases for offshore companies.

Yeah I know it's nothing illegal. Truth be told, back when I was working as a tax consultant, I helped advise the structuring of a lot of offshore companies. Honestly, won't surprise me if a few of my clients were caught up in the leak

While technically true, let us not pretend that the majority of people who employ these methods are not at least trying to obfuscate some less than savoury dealings.

I dunno man. Can't speak for any other company, but all my clients who wanted an asset holding company offshore just did it for tax purposes

 

[Machina]

While technically true, let us not pretend that the majority of people who employ these methods are not at least trying to obfuscate some less than savoury dealings.

Putin is involved. It is definitely not savoury.

While it may be technically legal, in this day and age of economic struggle, people won't tolerate the rich taking so much of the cake anymore.

 

[anonymous_abc]

While it may be technically legal, in this day and age of economic struggle, people won't tolerate the rich taking so much of the cake anymore.

I hope so, but have my doubts.
Expect nothing to change news at 1100.

 

[jellies_two]

More like leak gone too far. Using offshore companies and even using them to move billions around is nothing illegal. It can simply be privacy. And there are many more legal use cases for offshore companies.

What's with the surprising number of people on the side of Putin etc in this topic? I don't get it. Panama and Cayman Islands etc didn't build wealth out of legitimate offshore cash movements that could take place in London or New York in the open, when someone rich has setup trusts with nominee companies and so on 9 times out of 10 it's to hide from the taxman (income tax and death duties) hide from the ex wife, receive bribes and kick backs, escape capital controls and so on.
It's the cash economy for the 1% when cash becomes too bulky and obvious.
The usual excuse given, to protect money from frivolous law suits, is just code. The whole edifice of lawyers and accountants involved know exactly what the majority of their private clients are really up to.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

What's with the surprising number of people on the side of Putin etc in this topic? I don't get it. Panama and Cayman Islands etc didn't build wealth out of legitimate offshore cash movements that could take place in London or New York in the open, when someone rich has setup trusts with nominee companies and so on 9 times out of 10 it's to hide from the taxman (income tax and death duties) hide from the ex wife, receive bribes and kick backs, escape capital controls and so on.
It's the cash economy for the 1% when cash becomes too bulky and obvious.
The usual excuse given, to protect money from frivolous law suits, is just code. The whole edifice of lawyers and accountants involved know exactly what the majority of their private clients are really up to.

Can't speak for the guy you quoted, but the bolded is precisely why I'm "on the side of Putin," whatever that means.

I've helped plan and structure multiple offshore companies, and if my clients did so just for tax purposes. Is the general opaqueness of offshore companies a useful tool for people with things to hide? No doubt. But offshore companies themselves are indeed legal and many use them for benign purposes.

 

[Moosichu]

Yeah I know it's nothing illegal. Truth be told, back when I was working as a tax consultant, I helped advise the structuring of a lot of offshore companies. Honestly, won't surprise me if a few of my clients were caught up in the leak



I dunno man. Can't speak for any other company, but all my clients who wanted an asset holding company offshore just did it for tax purposes

While not illegal, it is arguably immoral and creates a two tiered system where the rich pay less tax than everyone else, even though they need that money a lot less.

It should also be illegal, government after government talk about closing loop holes while doing jack shit about it. Hopefully this will cause prods in the right direction.

 

[Annoying Old Party Man]

Capitalism, folks.

Also, if everyone is stealing, then erhm, noone is stealing? Let's just put this under the rug as gently as possible.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

While not illegal, it is arguably immoral and creates a two tiered system where the rich pay less tax than everyone else, even though they need that money a lot less.

It should also be illegal, government after government talk about closing loop holes while doing jack shit about it. Hopefully this will cause prods in the right direction.

How is it immoral? Rich people and entities have the resources to explore more options. If tax havens didn't exist, we'd just find other ways for our clients to minimise tax. If inequality is the issue, then your problem is with capitalism itself.

And governments do work towards closing those holes. Most countries have anti tax avoidance legislation that prevent corporate structures based purely for tax avoidance purposes. I will admit these laws are not full proof, but the narrative that governments do nothing is false.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Found a picture of the leaker:

 

[m3k]

if youre in aus, abc has an episode on 4corners now with one of the journalists involved from aus

 

[jellies_two]

How is it immoral? Rich people and entities have the resources to explore more options. If tax havens didn't exist, we'd just find other ways for our clients to minimise tax..

Minimizing tax is one thing
But in order to be worth doing the clients are Evading tax, not minimizing. These firms are obscuring the relationship between the rich and their own money, in return for a fat ongoing fee. The west loves to complain about Islamic money changers operating an unregulated black market to fund terrorism - this is just as unregulated. The structures are used to ship arms into countries that are on black lists, break embargoes and avoid international law.
We already know that UBS was caught breaking laws in the US and had to cough up fines and penalties and change its procedures, I imagine this firrn knows very well it was breaking laws which is why it is strenuously emphasizing that it vetted clients first and is as surprised as anyone else they are bent: if it wasn't breaking any laws it would not have to even say anything.
It's defense will be to throw its clients over the side, because they were acting illegally and it knows it is liable for knowingly helping them.
That's why it's immoral because these advisors are all pretending. It's a charade.

 

[Nabbis]

People have never been and never will be equal or treated fairly. Might as well be, ideally, one of those who are above the masses. At the same time though, it might as well be fair game to go all draconian about it and not hide behind pretense like these people do.

 

[Chichikov]

How is it immoral? Rich people and entities have the resources to explore more options. If tax havens didn't exist, we'd just find other ways for our clients to minimise tax. If inequality is the issue, then your problem is with capitalism itself.

And governments do work towards closing those holes. Most countries have anti tax avoidance legislation that prevent corporate structures based purely for tax avoidance purposes. I will admit these laws are not full proof, but the narrative that governments do nothing is false.

We have very little transparency about how many of the world's richest people and political elite make and maintain their giant fortunes. Now yeah, ideally we shouldn't have to rely on leaks to gather that information, especially leaks that might reveal information that should remain private, but this is the world that we live in, a world that by the way have been in large part created by the people who enjoy that fruits of that secrecy, so I'll take.
This goes to journalists and should be a net benefit for the world.

 

[Maledict]

How is it immoral? Rich people and entities have the resources to explore more options. If tax havens didn't exist, we'd just find other ways for our clients to minimise tax. If inequality is the issue, then your problem is with capitalism itself.

And governments do work towards closing those holes. Most countries have anti tax avoidance legislation that prevent corporate structures based purely for tax avoidance purposes. I will admit these laws are not full proof, but the narrative that governments do nothing is false.

Your answer doesn't touch on morality? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you shouldn't. Wealthy people having the option to pay less tax because of their wealth is fundamentally a bad, injust, immoral thing. Wealth already grants you huge privileges in life and in our society, it shouldn't also give you the option of not paying your fair share.

 

[MThanded]

I doubt you all will be able to convince a guy whose bills get paid by people who use offshore accounts.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Several thousand American companies are implicated. Specifics are coming later, apparently.

I don't know man... the Gaurdian says a lot of information will be kept secret. Seventh paragraph down:

While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data.

So what info will be published exactly? And what info will be kept private? This Craig Murray guys seems to have an idea (in his piece linked to and quoted earlier in the thread):

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

I hope he's wrong about this but I don't doubt this.

 

[SolidChamp]

There are fucking children dying every day in this world from starvation.

CHILDREN.

All the while this fucking shit goes on, like in some James Bond film.

This world man...why even bother?

 

[travisbickle]

Of course it's immoral. Why do you think celebrities and political figures are being targeted in the media coverage? They're supposed to be pillars of our society, or at least people with a conscience.

 

[bodyboarder]

Hopefully this means less resources for them to investigate my IKEA bookshelf deduction as part of my home office.

You are doing it wrong. You're supposed to be writing off corporate boxes to the footy, not cheap office furniture.

my workplace... lol

Feel free to post all the internal memos!

 

[jellies_two]

So apparently Chinese president Xi's family and a bunch of other high Chinese officials are also implicated: it's going to increase tensions inside China as there is already a faction that resent his concentration of power, it will require even more application of his iron fist to suppress.

 

[pringles]

Yeah I know it's nothing illegal. Truth be told, back when I was working as a tax consultant, I helped advise the structuring of a lot of offshore companies. Honestly, won't surprise me if a few of my clients were caught up in the leak



I dunno man. Can't speak for any other company, but all my clients who wanted an asset holding company offshore just did it for tax purposes

I'm not an expert on these matters... but isn't that the whole point of this leak? That these people are using these offshore companies to avoid paying taxes?

 

[Khoryos]

I'm not an expert on these matters... but isn't that the whole point of this leak? That these people are using these offshore companies to avoid paying taxes?

The question is whether they're avoiding or evading taxes.

One is illegal and/or libellous, the other is just kind of shitty.

 

[FoxSpirit]

I dunno man. Can't speak for any other company, but all my clients who wanted an asset holding company offshore just did it for tax purposes

Oh, so "tax optimisation". Not illegal, but questionable morally.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I'm not an expert on these matters... but isn't that the whole point of this leak? That these people are using these offshore companies to avoid paying taxes?

Ehhh, kinda? It's uncovered a lot of shady, if not outright illegal activities. But a lot of people in this thread seem to think offshore companies are by their nature illegal, which is not the case.

Your answer doesn't touch on morality? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you shouldn't. Wealthy people having the option to pay less tax because of their wealth is fundamentally a bad, injust, immoral thing. Wealth already grants you huge privileges in life and in our society, it shouldn't also give you the option of not paying your fair share.

The argument is that they did pay their fair share. Tax exemptions and tax agreements exist for a reason, and they made use of them. I will grant that many governments give far too many exemptions, and that many tax codes are needlessly complicated. But while those options exist, it'd be mad not to utilise them.

I guess personally, I'm just cynical about the whole narrative of closing tax loopholes. A good portion of my professional career was spent advising banks and private equity firms on tax. And every time the public gets up in arms about some tax issue, and the government responds to it, nothing really changes. Every time a so called tax loophole is closed, we find our clients new ways to minimise tax. And the open secret is that's what governments want; taxes for businesses are generally low with lots of exemptions because you want to encourage business in your economy.

Similarly, so long as capitalism is the system we function in, the wealthy will always have more options than the poor. Be it healthcare, education, nutrition, legal advise, whatever. I've worked in companies that service the largest companies in their industry, and I had worked in firms that represent poor migrants, and the difference in quality of service is huge. And the unfortunate reality is that unless you can find a way to pay us a million for a job as opposed to two thousand, you're not going to be getting the same quality of work. It sucks, but until we find a more workable system than capitalism, that's what we're stuck with.

We have very little transparency about how many of the world's richest people and political elite make and maintain their giant fortunes. Now yeah, ideally we shouldn't have to rely on leaks to gather that information, especially leaks that might reveal information that should remain private, but this is the world that we live in, a world that by the way have been in large part created by the people who enjoy that fruits of that secrecy, so I'll take.
This goes to journalists and should be a net benefit for the world.

Ehhh, I get where you're coming from, but I don't know what other option there is. Do assets suddenly become public information if you have over a set amount? That'll just make people put money in trusts and other asset holders. Does the government then have the right to trace money to its source? That raises serious questions about government overreach and the right to privacy.

I do agree that more transparency is good and that this leak has shown a glimpse of some the clandestine dealings of the rich and powerful. But I have no idea how to address that without investing governments with incredible powers of search.

 

[pringles]

The question is whether they're avoiding or evading taxes.

One is illegal and/or libellous, the other is just kind of shitty.

While I can understand that details may determine whether individuals are in danger of facing legal action or not, in the larger picture does that distinction matter? Seems easy enough to get a grip on what's been going on here. Endless millions of dollars hidden away to avoid taxes. For players like swedish bank Nordea it's already a disaster. And likely to only get worse for them as more details roll out.

 

[norinrad]

For individuals it probably doesn't matter as it's human nature, but for institutions and head of public institutions, it's a huge disaster for the system and people they are supposed to be serving in the first place. This is why I dislike banks. They never learned a thing. Business as usual.

 

[Minamu]

Sweden's IRS has formally requested/demanded the names of the 400+ Swedes mentioned in the leaks for some investigations. So at least someone is taking it rather seriously here.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Sweden's IRS has formally requested/demanded the names of the 400+ Swedes mentioned in the leaks for some investigations. So at least someone is taking it rather seriously here.

Oh wow. I wonder whether any other countries will follow suite

 

[faridmon]

Sweden's IRS has formally requested/demanded the names of the 400+ Swedes mentioned in the leaks for some investigations. So at least someone is taking it rather seriously here.

So far, nothing on Norwegian individuals who partook the whole thing. But I wonder if they are protected or if what.

 

[Strax]

Iceland PM won't resign. He just said this in a live interview.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Can't wait for this to be the new hot topic in US politics. All the Republican candidates will say the other had something to do with it (especially towards Trump), Sanders will likely backhandedly accuse Hillary, and all of the right-wing media will accuse Obama.

Panama Papers is going to become like steroid accusations in baseball. Everyone will dish them out, and since nobody is going to go deep into these for years, everyone will be guilty until proven innocent.

I GUARANTEE YOU the first time Fox News heard about these, their news team's response was "Find out if Obama had something to do with it."

 

[HarryHengst]

Sweden's IRS has formally requested/demanded the names of the 400+ Swedes mentioned in the leaks for some investigations. So at least someone is taking it rather seriously here.

Same with the Dutch IRS. Guess those people and companies should have made a deal with our IRS to pay about 1% tax instead of trying to hide it all, would have saved them this embarrassment.

 

[Dingens]

Mainstream US media is a fucking joke. Not one mention on CNN frontpage last time I checked.

Well it's called free press for a reason. free also means "free to choose" which topics you'd like to cover. They are not obligated to report everything (that's something, public media should do, well at least in theory...). They will probably start talking about it when it gets big enough

I don't know man... the Gaurdian says a lot of information will be kept secret. Seventh paragraph down:

So what info will be published exactly? And what info will be kept private? This Craig Murray guys seems to have an idea (in his piece linked to and quoted earlier in the thread):


I hope he's wrong about this but I don't doubt this.

pretty much what I expected after these last ~2 years of questionable media coverage.
I don't know who Craig Murray is, but I think this part was spot on:

I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

Pretty much how I feel about this
I already know that water is wet... can we please move on and find out if holy oil is wet too or just greasy? this Putin obsession is getting nonsensical. Why are people so obsessed with showing how evil he is? we already know that, there is pretty much nothing to expose left. It just takes away attention from stuff we don't knowm for certain yet, stuff that's detrimental to our own lives. Unless you live in Russia, stashing away rubels somewhere probably isn't going to effect you. Cutting on public spending because there wasn't enough tax revenue is (even if you don't notice it)

 

[Minamu]

Oh wow. I wonder whether any other countries will follow suite

So far, nothing on Norwegian individuals who partook the whole thing. But I wonder if they are protected or if what.

I haven't seen the actual newspapers yet but it's all over every major news site here, they're all going for the banks' jugulars at this point. "The biggest leak in our history" they're calling it. "Our ambition is to never commit a felony" is the bank's goto statement, completely evading direct questions such as "can you confirm that you haven't been involved in illegal activities?" xD

 

[VenomBoss]

As far as I'm concerned they should all got to jail or pay back large fines.

If you or I were doing the IRS will have had out balls on a platter.

One law for all not just rich.

 

[jelly]

As far as I'm concerned they should all got to jail or pay back large fines.

If you or I were doing the IRS will have had out balls on a platter.

One law for all not just rich.

They go for small fry because they usually won't fight it and tie the government in knots. Disappointing but that's the way it works. Rich enough to make it a pain in arse so IRS etc. don't bother.

 

[Arnie7]

Yeah US media being very slow to report this.