# Panama



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Just talked to my guy in Panama..... he says not to worry. My name starts with an 'S', and with there being gazillions of terabytes of data to go thru, it will take 20 years before the authorities get to my records. Whew!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Just juicy news ... :watermelon:


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Only in the hereafter will this whistle blower find a safe place to be.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tax evasion is only one part of the story.

Drug money laundering, financing terrorism, paying bribes to officials for contracts, are also part of it.

One law professor said there are different countries for different kinds of offshore accounts. The Cayman Islands have rigorous standards and report to the US.

Panama is chosen by those seeking total secrecy and a poor level of regulatory scrutiny, more often than not for nefarious, illegal reasons.

Why Royal Bank chose loosely regulated Panama over the more transparent Cayman Islands is a legitimate question I hope a reporter asks them.

Added...........just a small sampling on the journalist website.

Stealing and hiding pension funds from retired miners, financing terrorists and drug dealers, hiding the proceeds from the biggest gold theft in UK history. arms dealers, nuclear weapon proliferators..........

Lord only knows what will be revealed in May when it is all going to be released, and what the public backlash could be.

I wonder if this will boost Bernie Sanders campaign, because this is what he has been talking about for years.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

RBC did not chose Panama, their clients did. RBC has a subdidiary in the Caymans but not Panama.


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

Panama is the location of the law firm who's data was leaked. The offshore companies and accounts are spread amongst 21 different countries


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

Some are getting caught up in this, having done nothing wrong. A Canadian doc wanted to buy a house in Panama. Someone recommended this law firm. Law firm recommended doc have it held in a Panamanian company, doc did so. Doc sold house later, paying all required taxes in both countries. Toronto Star throws his name and city out there, in an article about the leak and tax evasion. Nice.

I wandered through the database for Canada. You can click through to deeper levels of connections. Some click through to a single company, with one or two individuals, some appear families. Some look to be just two companies until you click through one of them. At that point it becomes a huge web of companies with the a lot of the same names as beneficiaries, directors, shareholders, etc.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

If you've obtained the data and are looking through it, I'll add a warning (as I did during the Ashley Madison leak) that it may be against the law to possess data that has been stolen. Here in the US, it's enough of a grey area that I stay away from it. I don't know about Canadian laws; consult with a lawyer before downloading or sharing the stolen data.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ct-ashley-madison-data-bsi-20150819-story.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think it has gone beyond the question of holding funds in an offshore account being legal or not, to the broader question of tax avoidance in general.

People are questioning why they are having benefits and services reduced, or they must pay higher taxes to keep them in place............at the same time there are "legal" means to avoid taxes.

It was estimated that Canada is losing $6-7 Billion a year in lost tax revenue, but nobody knows the exact amount.

The Trudeau government gave the CRA an extra $440 million in the last budget to investigate how much tax evasion is costing Canada and to conduct audits and prosecute offenders.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

James, there is a searchable database on the ICIJ website. All one needs to do is select a country and search. No need to download or possess data.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These databases cast doubt the intentions are honorable, when they branch out into a complicated web of names and companies, interconnected and flowing in all directions.

It isn't necessary to go to such extremes for legitimate business transactions.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I know of at least one huge multinational that has all of its accounts receivable paid to its office in an off-shore country for tax "efficiency" reasons. It's a fine line between efficiency and evasion. I can understand that it is difficult to determine where a multinational should pay its "fair share" of taxes - Where it's HQ is located?; Where it's Regional HQ's/operating divisions are located?; where's it's manufacturing is located?; where its goods/products are sold?. But there has to be a better method than channelling all it's income to an offshore tax haven, and letting its own accountants decide what they will declare (if anything) to which government.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

A number of media types are defending the accounts because its not illegal, just rich peolple using the tools available to them.

So I might accept that some rich saudi shiek funnels his money in there. I might even accept a legit company like Apple does it. But a leader of a country or government who sets tax policy does it? No way.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

RCB said:


> James, there is a searchable database on the ICIJ website. All one needs to do is select a country and search. No need to download or possess data.


OK, that's a relief.

I'd caution people about drawing conclusions though. Just because someone has a corporate shell doesn't mean they are doing anything illegal. All of this data needs context.

As with other potential crimes, I leave it to the justice system to determine if there's actually any wrongdoing.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm still skeptical about a leak like this one. We still don't have the whole context to judge them in the public sphere.

These were documents from a snapshot in time, and could potentially be outdated or superceded by other material. It would be good for the CRA and IRS to begin investigating material they find here, but ultimately it's the CRA's job to build a case against someone, and convict, if there's actual wrongdoing.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

So this Panama thing has me thinking. Yeah scary
The law firm claims they were hacked. The hacker sold the data to a newspaper in Germany.
So technically the information is stolen property.
We don't know where the hacker is from. 
Lets assume Sweden for arguements sake.
Person in Sweden steals something in Panama and sells it in Germany. In this case it was Information(electronic copies of documents). How do governments pass laws to protect against this sort of think. Should the newspaper( or reporters) be charged with possession of stolen property?. Obviously the hacker should be charged but with what? Breaking and entering, theft? In what country should they be charged tried and jailed.
How do we deal with cross border theft, especially when between countries that may not have treaties or may not be on good terms or have the same level of jusisprudence.
How different is this than if I flew into Panama, stole a car and flew into Germany and sold it.
How different if it was a disgruntled employee of the law firm in question?
Thoughtd


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't know if there was a "payoff" to any individual.

The information was hacked and offered to the German newspaper anonymously. If they made a payment, that would leave a trail but this person obviously wasn't stupid enough to do that.

Maybe they paid him in bitcoins ?.......or maybe they downloaded the information and then dropped a bag of money in an alley somewhere.

The exposure is just the tip of the iceberg, according to many experts. Governments have created the situations precisely so the wealthy can hide their money.

Times have changed. Politics have changed. Most people have become increasingly poorer as some have become increasingly richer.

They are angry about it. If they are angry enough to demand politicians put a stop to it remains to be seen.

Already, interest in the whole affair by the main stream media has faded. They are more interested in talking about Donald Trump and the Kardashians.


----------



## donna9 (Apr 9, 2016)

Starting to get more and more involved with this whole Panama Papers thing. I also wonder how this willa ffect the American election seeing as how Hillary is deeply corrupt and as expected has had their hands in it.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

sags said:


> I don't know if there was a "payoff" to any individual.
> 
> The information was hacked and offered to the German newspaper anonymously. If they made a payment, that would leave a trail but this person obviously wasn't stupid enough to do that.
> 
> ...


Not sure how he or she was paid but the newspaper that bought the information openly acknowledged they paid for it.
Pretty easy to pay for something and keep the sellers idenyity secret if you really wanted to.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Just curious about what ever happened to the last leak a couple of years or so ago. Supposedly a bunch if Canadians were caught in so me offshore tax evasion scheme, then never heard anymore about it.


----------



## RUSH2112 (Mar 25, 2012)

Media bought off once again.

Putin's face on every newspaper front page under the heading but his name is never mentioned in the documents.

I understand Soros funded this, wants world war three and Assad gone.

Soros has major bets on the downfall of America.

He don't care who wins or loses.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the leaks stop at Putin and some foreign governments, it would surely look suspicious.

But, from what I have read they say only a small portion of the data has been released. More data will be released in May that will include US citizens.

Some are also saying that with the US - Panama free trade agreement, there are a myriad of other ways for Americans to offshore money through Panama and not be included in this leak.

This is the data from one law firm. There are many others and different ways to hide money. This is only the tip of the "tax evasion" iceberg.

Some estimates put the amount of hidden money at $30 Trillion dollars, but it is almost impossible to quantify because it is so wide spread.

One thing I know, the government knows, and most everybody in the world knows...........is the rich are getting richer at an astounding rate and everyone else is getting poorer.

Bernie Sanders said today that when inflation is factored in..........people had more purchasing power 40 years ago than they do today.

It seems there is nobody who can do anything about that and society is heading for the inevitable social upheaval and unrest.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

tygrus said:


> A number of media types are defending the accounts because its not illegal, just rich peolple using the tools available to them.


Most reports I have seen have spent at least 70% of the time looking at where there is a potential conflict of interest or what appears to be tax evasion. A few have spent a bit of time talking about legal use.

I have yet to see any media types going 100% that it is a legal tool.




tygrus said:


> So I might accept that some rich saudi shiek funnels his money in there. I might even accept a legit company like Apple does it. But a leader of a country or government who sets tax policy does it? No way.


What makes it okay for Apple for not okay for individuals?

They design the product, make a fortune from selling it but on the loophole that the money is parked in another country makes it "not profit"?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Just curious about what ever happened to the last leak a couple of years or so ago. Supposedly a bunch if Canadians were caught in so me offshore tax evasion scheme, then never heard anymore about it.


As I understand it ... the leaks weren't financial details (except a bit about how the accounting firm was recruiting). The leaks were more about the lack of support from the gov't and the secret deal of just the owed taxes instead of any penalties or interest.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

donna9 said:


> I also wonder how this willa ffect the American election seeing as how Hillary is deeply corrupt and as expected has had their hands in it.


What evidence have you seen that she is deeply corrupt?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> If the leaks stop at Putin and some foreign governments, it would surely look suspicious.


Stop at Putin/foreign gov'ts?

Supposedly three hundred fifty Canadians and at least RBC are alleged to be mentioned so I don't get how one can think it is limited to foreign figures/gov'ts.

Then too, where there's one company for one purpose that lines up with how Panama operates then it has the chance of being legitimate. Where there are three or more (some references say fifteen companies) that the owner has a string of charges including fraud and/or discipline charges - it seems more likely that the purposes are less than legit.




sags said:


> ... But, from what I have read they say only a small portion of the data has been released. More data will be released in May that will include US citizens.


If it is like Canada, there's a small number released not (about six with the total being reported as three hundred fifty).

Some are also saying that with the US - Panama free trade agreement, there are a myriad of other ways for Americans to offshore money through Panama and not be included in this leak.

There seems to be reports of seven US citizens tied to US court cases. 

Perhaps a bigger reason is that they may prefer to stay at home. States like Delaware and Wyoming allow anonymous companies - for just a few hundred dollars, that conceal the creator as well as who benefits financially. Setting up a Delaware shell corp is reported as taking an hour. When done, the shell - in some cases, has no US bank account, no requirement for reporting documents and no one knows who owns them.

And while US banks are normally required to "know their customers," they can bypass that rule and open accounts for shell companies, ensuring total discretion for someone who wants to move money around quietly.


With these capabilities available in the US - there doesn't seem a huge need to mess around with Panama (though some have reported BVI being popular with US citizens).



Cheers


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

The manner in which the evidence has been obtained might be an obstacle to prosecutions. The most likely people to suffer any consequences in the short term are politicians and other public figures, who have to worry about their reputations. Others can lawyer up and say "so sue/charge me. All your so-called evidence is tainted."

CRA can try to use the info to target audits/investigations, but I can see the "tainted evidence" defence becoming a major issue at some stage. OTOH, CRA could argue that it is no different than if they received an anonymous tip about someone having off-shore accounts - they still have the right to conduct tax audits on anyone at anytime, to make their own case.


----------



## RUSH2112 (Mar 25, 2012)

james4beach said:


> What evidence have you seen that she is deeply corrupt?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem/5385962

http://freebeacon.com/blog/the-clinton-foundation-scandals-explained/

Your denial of the truth is very troublesome.


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I know of at least one huge multinational that has all of its accounts receivable paid to its office in an off-shore country for tax "efficiency" reasons. It's a fine line between efficiency and evasion. I can understand that it is difficult to determine where a multinational should pay its "fair share" of taxes - Where it's HQ is located?; Where it's Regional HQ's/operating divisions are located?; where's it's manufacturing is located?; where its goods/products are sold?. But there has to be a better method than channelling all it's income to an offshore tax haven, and letting its own accountants decide what they will declare (if anything) to which government.


The main problem with corporations is not the under-reporting of income, but the erosion of the tax base by shifting income to lower tax jurisdictions unjustifiably. In the scenario that you describe, a multinational corporation might incorporate a company in a low tax jurisdiction for the purpose of the company engaging in factoring, or acting as a central corporate treasury. In this way, they can at least report some interest income at a lower tax rate than in the jurisdictions in which they make sales. The OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project will make such planning more difficult, but not impossible. In particular, it will necessary for there to be "substance" in the entity in the low tax jurisdiction, specifically employing people to manage and perform the factoring or treasury operations. But if the company can meet these substance requirements, this type of structuring is basically legitimate.


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

I see a lot of discussion assuming that developing countries are being short-changed by rich people evading taxes through the use of anonymous holding companies. However, not every country has "controlled foreign company" (CFC) anti-deferral mechanisms in their tax laws that would make passive investment income earned in holding companies taxable immediately. Without CFC rules, the income generated in a holding company is only taxable when that corporation distributes dividends to its shareholder. Some countries may be short changing themselves through the lack of sophistication in their tax laws and administration.

In Canada, if a rich individual sets up a corporation in Bermuda, and uses that company to buy and hold investments, any income earned on those investments is likely to be immediately taxable in the hands of the individual as "foreign accrual property income." The US has a similar CFC regime known as subpart F. Many developed countries have similar CFC regimes.

I'm not defending the rich investors in the Panama Papers leak. All I'm saying is that one should not assume that those rich investors were illegally depriving their home governments of tax revenue by holding investments in corporations abroad, if there was no way legal mechanism to make that investment income immediately taxable in their home country.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Robillard said:


> I see a lot of discussion assuming that developing countries are being short-changed by rich people evading taxes through the use of anonymous holding companies.


Say what?

Most of the discussion I have seen is around developed countries being short changed as the average person has to pay a lot and does not have the offshore tax havens to use. Then too, the tax lawyers for the regular population were indicating their clients are not offered "just pay us the taxes, we will forgo the penalties and interest" secret deal the Isle of Mann Canadians KMPG advised were offered.

For Iceland, the comments I have heard on the radio by Icelanders are the conflict of interest of the politicians putting in place laws that don't allow money to leave the country while holding large amounts offshore.


So far, I have no problem recalling complaints about what the citizen's country is losing and next to nothing about what the developing countries are losing.



Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Canadian government has directed the CRA to switch from having an interest in simply collecting the taxes due (as in previous offshore cases) to "deterrence" mode.

The new money........$440 million is to hire 100 more auditors and investors, and accompany the teams with lawyers to assist in criminal prosecutions.

According the CRA website.........

Effective tax planning is legal.

Tax avoidance is illegal. Although the structure may follow the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is violated. Payment of taxes due, plus interest and penalties is the result. (General Anti-Avoidance Rule - GARR)

Tax evasion is illegal and is a criminal offense.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/lrt/vvw-eng.html

Under this format, offshore accounts are only legal for necessary business purposes. An offshore account set up to avoid taxes in Canada is illegal.

Clearly the often stated concept of a citizen right or duty to avoid taxes is without any legal foundation.

If deterrence is the goal, it is predictable that tax avoiders will be assessed the maximum penalties and tax evaders will be criminally prosecuted.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One of the wealthiest Canadians Louise Blouin has been implicated in the Panama Papers.

She claims no knowledge of the structure or legality of the offshore accounts, and uses them to buy and sell fine art and real estate as a 'hobby".

She also claims that since she has been living in Switzerland for decades, she owes no taxes to Canada.

Perhaps she is right about paying taxes in Canada, but I am sure the Swiss will be interested if she is paying the full taxes there on her multi-million dollar "hobby".

Her defense to blame accountants and claim it is all income from a hobby. reveals the mantle of entitlement the rich have bestowed upon themselves.

She recently purchased a home in Montreal and will be staying more in Canada. She will no doubt make use of all the services that she avoided paying for.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada...est-women-louise-blouin-in-panama-papers.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

To me this type of thing is like the rich walking up, smiling and saying..........."you regular folks are so stupid"


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

Eclectic12,

The list of people connected to the Panama Papers, even on the Wikipedia page, shows a long list of government officials of developing countries, cronies and family of people connected to governments of developing countries. The connections to the prime ministers of Iceland and the United Kingdom have been well publicised in the Western media though. There is quite a mix of clients from all over the world, but at a cursory glance, it appears that the majority are citizens of developing countries.


----------



## Robillard (Apr 11, 2009)

sags,

I think that you are misreading the intent of the CRA's policy statement from their website. The CRA does not say that setting up on offshore bank or brokerage account is illegal. Moreover, holding an offshore bank or brokerage account alone is in no way a violation of Canada's GAAR. They do no say that having an offshore bank or brokerage account is a violation of the spirit of the law. What is illegal is failing to report income that one earns from foreign sources. That is tax evasion. Offshore bank and brokerage accounts have legitimate uses, and should remain legal. If a Canadian investor wants to invest in stock, bonds, ETFs or mutual funds that are domisiled abroad, unless a Canadian bank or brokerage offers accounts that access those financial markets, generally they will need a foreign bank/brokerage account with a foreign financial institution in the relevant jurisdiction. 

Interposing a holding company to hold foreign investments, anonymous or not, to my knowledge, does not remove the reporting obligation and tax liability under Canada's controlled foreign company regime (assuming that the income is classified as foreign accrual property income). So failing to report passive investment income earned through offshore holding companies may already be considered evasion and therefore illegal. 

Up until now, the CRA's ability to collect information on Canadians' offshore bank and brokerage accounts was limited primarily by the level of cooperation provided by foreign governments under tax treaties and information exchange agreements. However, with Canada implementing the OECD's Common Reporting Standard, and signing on to the agreement to facilitate information exchange, come 2018, CRA will have access to large amounts of information on offshore bank and brokerage accounts held by Canadian individuals and businesses. 

Suggesting that offshore bank and brokerage accounts are illegal under Canada's tax rules is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Making offshore bank and brokerage accounts illegal is, in my opinion, entirely unnecessary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I haven't heard that anyone wants to make offshore accounts illegal. It is the activity within the offshore accounts which may be illegal.

The main data will be released in May, which will contain 214,000 names of individuals and corporations.

The CBC already has the data but refuses to release it to the CRA.

The Panamanian anti-crime unit raided the law office in Panama on Tuesday.

This story is going to continue to evolve over time and is getting a lot more coverage in Europe than it is in North America.

That could change with the data dump in May.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I have lots of offshore accounts. From the US perspective, I have over a dozen offshore accounts in Canada & Australia.

The difference is that I bust my *** doing full disclosure of them... of the 37 hours in total that I've spent working on my personal taxes this year, over half of that was attributed to proper disclosure of my offshore accounts.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

RUSH2112 said:


> Your denial of the truth is very troublesome.


What denial? I asked what evidence you've seen. I did not deny anything.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong about someone holding offshore accounts, or owning a corporation in another country. These are extremely common and legitimate. You're not guilty of a crime if you hold a foreign shell corp.

I'll give you real, and relevant parallel that might illustrate.

People can (and sometimes do) use foreign trust accounts, akin to the TFSA, to conduct tax fraud. Let's say American journalists got their hands on a list of all wealthy Americans who hold Canadian TFSAs.

By American law, US persons must disclose (through an arduous and _painful_ process) all foreign trusts like the TFSA. Many people do not. Heck, if you know any American citizens, they probably are failing to follow this US law. Failure to file the disclosure may or may not be due to malicious intentions.

*In the theoretical leak I envisage, the media runs a story. "The TFSA papers: the following multi-millionaires have secretly concealed offshore accounts in Canada, and dodged their US taxes!!"*

It sounds horrible, but of course the TFSA is not inherently evil, just like offshore corps aren't inherently evil. There are a mix of people caught under this umbrella:
- some took care of their US obligations... 100% legit
- some forgot handle the odd US obligations... wrong, but not malicious
- some deliberately avoided US obligations... wrong, and tax evasion crime
- some fall under tax categories where there is nothing illegal happening

I'd imagine the Panama papers are much the same. It makes for a lot of headlines, but it's overblown and is painting a lot of harmless people with a bad brush.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Robillard said:


> Eclectic12,
> 
> The list of people connected to the Panama Papers, even on the Wikipedia page, shows a long list of government officials of developing countries, cronies and family of people connected to governments of developing countries. The connections to the prime ministers of Iceland and the United Kingdom have been well publicised in the Western media though. There is quite a mix of clients from all over the world, but at a cursory glance, it appears that the majority are citizens of developing countries.


I don't think that the government officials from developing countries are trying to evade taxes. I think they are trying to cover up any paper trail that can lead from government embezzlement money into their pocket.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you go to the Panama Papers website and browse the names, you will see a lot of the people have offshore accounts that link to other offshore accounts that link to other offshore accounts..............

It is highly suspect that people created these inter-connected offshore accounts and multiple holding companies for simple business reasons.

It is even more suspect when they chose to do it in as secret and non transparent a method as possible, which was only discovered when they were hacked and obviously weren't being reported to authorities.

If they were being reported, the CRA and other world regulators would already know the details and wouldn't be so interested in getting their hands on the data.

Call me a skeptic...........but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...............


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I see, you're saying that the structure of these things is beyond what might be a common and reasonable structure (like an offshore trust, or a standalone offshore corporation).

I didn't realize there were interconnections of them that were chained together. If that's true, I see what you're getting at.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

sags said:


> If you go to the Panama Papers website and browse the names, you will see a lot of the people have offshore accounts that link to other offshore accounts that link to other offshore accounts..............
> 
> It is highly suspect that people created these inter-connected offshore accounts and multiple holding companies for simple business reasons.


If you are an expert tell why this is "highly suspect". If not, refer us to an opinion of someone who is.


sags said:


> It is even more suspect when they chose to do it in as secret and non transparent a method as possible, which was only discovered when they were hacked and obviously weren't being reported to authorities.


Why was it secret? They didn't tell you? What should have been "reported to authorities" and how do you know it wasn't.



sags said:


> If they were being reported, the CRA and other world regulators would already know the details and wouldn't be so interested in getting their hands on the data.


Since the CRA doesn't know what's in the "panama Papers", they can't know if it reported or not.



sags said:


> Call me a skeptic...........but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...............


If this were an "alternative medicine" thread, I think I would know where to find the quack.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Live information on what is happening around the world in response to the Panama Papers leak.

https://www.reddit.com/live/wp1fvdxxwb45

Background and in depth information from the investigators.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/

List of people who have already quit or been deposed.

(Iceland) Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, Prime Minister of Iceland: 
(Chile) Gonzalo Delaveu, President of Transparency Chile: 
(Austria) Michael Grahammer, CEO of Hypo Landesbank Vorarlberg: 
(Uruguay) Juan Pedro Damiani, FIFA Ethics Committee Member: 
(Netherlands) Bert Meerstadt, ABN AMRO Bank Board Member:
(Iceland) Júlíus Vífill Ingvarsson, Independence Party city councilperson for Reykjavík: 
(Sri Lanka) Vidya Amarapala, Advisor to the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development:

A simple explanation of offshore banking accounts

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...anking-and-when-it-is-naughty-to-a-5-year-old

Police raids in many countries, authorities initiating investigations all over the world, governments proposing new legislation, and an anti tax avoidance summit for 28 countries being held.

The journalists investigators have said it is only the tip of the iceberg thus far. They will be releasing a lot more information in May.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

sags said:


> The journalists investigators have said it is only the tip of the iceberg thus far. They will be releasing a lot more information in May.


And when they fail to do so, they will blame global warming.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Robillard said:


> ... The list of people connected to the Panama Papers, even on the Wikipedia page, shows a long list of government officials of developing countries, cronies and family of people connected to governments of developing countries ...


Ahhh ... I misunderstood.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> I haven't heard that anyone wants to make offshore accounts illegal. It is the activity within the offshore accounts which may be illegal.


Where it is money laundering ... sure. For those like the KPMG Isle of Mann types ... I think it was more the registered ownership that making it looks like the earnings in the accounts belonged mostly to a local instead of the Canadian who was the original source and allegedly controlling via proxy what was happening.

Then too, everything in the activities can be just fine where the only issue is that one forgets that it is foreign income that has to be reported.


Cheers


----------

