Angus
Robertson, the SNP’s leader in Westminster, has written to the
Prime Minister to demand all cabinet ministers release statements on
their financial affairs. He said the Chancellor was hypocritical in
attacking tax avoidance but failing to release his own tax returns.
He
added: “David Cameron has serious questions to answer and must
provide full disclosure of his cabinet: how many government ministers
have benefited from tax havens?”
“We
have yet to hear from George Osborne, or others.”
Panama Papers: John Key tips review of foreign trusts after reports Mossack Fonseca bragged about lax NZ tax laws
Prime
Minister John Key said an independent review of the legislation
around foreign trusts is likely to go ahead.
Key
told Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking Breakfast he would ask Cabinet today
for an independent expert to review New Zealand's rules around
foreign trusts.
"We
will go and get an internationally recognised expert to go away and
have a look at the disclosure rules in New Zealand and make sure
we're ticking all the boxes.
"We
have nothing to hide so at the end of the day New Zealand should have
the best international practice in this area."
Green
Party co-leader James Shaw said National were in damage limitation
mode.
"He
hasn't admitted that there is a problem, he said that they are hiring
an international expert to tell us if there is a problem. I think we
are past that stage.
"Last
week we had the unedifying spectacle of the Prime Minister denying
that New Zealand was being used as a tax haven, whereas everyone from
Inland Revenue, Transparency International and a whole group of
international experts were saying that there was [a problem]."
Shaw
said he hoped meaningful changes might come from any expert's review,
however the Green Party wanted an open inquiry into the issue.
Labour
leader Andrew Little said a full, independent inquiry was needed. New
Zealand's reputation was being "sullied around the world"
because of the revelations, Little said.
"One
tax expert isn't going to solve this, especially one appointed by a
Prime Minister who doesn't think hiding their finances behind tax
free funds is morally wrong.
"A
full inquiry must instead assure New Zealanders that everyone pays
their fair share and that we are not part of an international tax
evasion racket."
Key
told Radio New Zealand's Morning Report he doesn't believe he has
ever used an offshore account to hide money, but did have a
superannuation fund in Singapore after working and living in the
country.
Key
said he has no intention to release his tax records publicly. "I'm
quite comfortable and very confident of my tax records. I've used the
best people, I don't use tax sheltering vehicles," he told RNZ.
Little
suggested the Prime Minister might have something to hide, saying he
was "far too cagey" when asked by media if he had ever used
a tax haven for his finances.
"He
needs to clear this up and quickly. He must come clean if he has
directly or indirectly benefited from funds in a tax haven. The last
thing our international reputation needs is for rumours to swirl
around our Prime Minister's tax affairs."
His
remarks follow revelations in the Panama Papers leaks that law firm
Mossack Fonseca bragged to clients how easy New Zealand laws made it
for foreign investors to hide their tax-free profits.
The
11.5 million documents leaked from Panama-based Mossack Fonseca
showed how the world's elite hide assets in offshore accounts. New
Zealand was identified by the law firm as a good place to hide money
in trust accounts because of its relaxed laws around foreign trusts,
the documents revealed.
The Australian
Financial Review reported that in 2012 Mossack
Fonseca's New Zealand staff reported advice they received from an
executive at Nexus Trust: "NZ has very weak laws in regard to
due diligence; they only require utility bill and passport. Trust
companies are not required to hold a licence."
The
sign in front of Mossack Fonseca in Panama City. Photo / Getty Images
There
was no need to register who put assets into a foreign trust,
according to documents the AFR has
seen. A Staples Rodway lawyer reportedly explained another advantage:
"The New Zealand definition of 'beneficial owner' is different
to that of many other jurisdictions, in that we do not require due
diligence on the person/s who will benefit from the funds."
Two
years later the firm's New Zealand office was asked for "combo
packs." The packs were a combination of New Zealand foreign
trusts (which pay no tax on foreign income) and what is described as
Look Through Companies (LTCs), which could be owned by the trusts,
and which also pay zero tax on offshore earnings,
the AFR reported. Prime
Minister's chief of staff, Keith Schembri, set up secret holdings in
Panama and New Zealand linked to a Dubai bank account came to light.
The
"Panama Papers", the document trove is the largest ever of
its kind and is said to reveal how "heads of state, criminals
and celebrities"hide their assets offshore.
"The
cache of 11.5 million records shows how a global industry of law
firms and big banks sells financial secrecy to politicians,
fraudsters and drug traffickers as well as billionaires, celebrities
and sports stars," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists, which spent a year analysing the leaked
papers.
About
60,000 of these documents are believed to relate to New Zealand and
more details are beginning to emerge.
Prime
Minister John Key has come under increasing pressure to act because
of New Zealand being described as a "tax haven" in some
international media. Last week he repeatedly insisted that trust laws
had been unchanged since 1988 and no tweaks were required.
- NZ
Herald From Radio New Zealand. The PM is evasive
PM
responds to criticism over handling of Panama papers
A
back down is looming on the Panama Papers as the Prime Minister bows
to pressure to act over the way Foreign Trusts operate in New
Zealand. Mr Key will go to Cabinet today with a plan to hold a review
into the New Zealand foreign trust regime. All last week Mr Key
defended New Zealand's current laws and he still maintains the
country has high standards in this area.
The Panama Papers: Secrets of the Super Rich - Monday 4 April 2016
New
Zealand apparently is mentioned 60,000 times in the Panama Papers
(which, as we know represents only a small part of the picture. We
have a prime minister involved in corruption up to his teeth (and as
a banker he can’t profess not to understand what this about).
Winston
Peters is serious about this and not just politicking. He has been
onto corruption (and its coverup) in this country ever since the
Winebox Inquiry in the 1980’s, details of which are
difficult to find now. He has more institutional memory than most and
if he can’t bring out the truth of the matter then no one can.
He
is the first politician in this country to say (in this interview)
that politics in the United States is corrupt.
People
in Britain are very, very angry and Cameron has been seriously
embarassed. Who knows where this will go in coming days.
As
far as New Zealand is concerned all I can say is, “watch this
space”
'We
know that this country has been used as a tax haven' - Winston Peters
on Panama Papers
New
Zealand First leader Winston Peters says the country risks huge
reputational damage in the wake of the release of the Panama Papers
and a commission of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of the
matter.
NZ
First leader Winston Peters is calling for a inquiry into NZ’s
involvement into the Panama papers saga. He was interviewed by our
political editor Corin Dann
The
massive leak of documents linked to Panama-based law
firm Mossack Fonseca has shed light on the shadowy world of
offshore banking and tax havens, and has already seen the Icelandic
Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson step down.
British
PM David
Cameron
is also coming under fire over his family's links to offshore bank
accounts.
Speaking
to TVNZ's political editor Corin Dann on Q + A this morning, Mr
Peters said there is certain to be more fall out as more information
is revealed.
"With
the number of references to New Zealand we know that this country has
been used as a tax haven," Mr Peters says.
"Now
that's enormous reputational risk for a country like our.
"Remember
the Cooks Islands, we know what the Cayman Islands do, the Jersey
islands and all round the world. But we're not a country with that
reputation and that's why there is going to have to be a serious
commission of inquiry."
Prime
Minister John Key says New Zealand is not a tax haven as it's a "full
disclosure" regime.
Close
to 12,000 foreign trusts have been established here, the Panama
Papers revealed.
“Remember
the Cooks Islands, we know what the Cayman Islands do, the Jersey
islands and all round the world"”
Winston
Peters
John
Christensen of the UK's Tax Justice Network, which advocates for
transparent tax regimes, said New Zealand's reputation had been
harmed, but not fatally.
"Happily
for New Zealand it isn't a huge player, it's not very high up on the
financial secrecy rankings, it isn't nearly as big a player or
frankly as somewhere like the British Virgin Islands.
"But
none-the-less, we kind of looked to New Zealand as a place where you
have responsible government, co-operative government, it's a place
we'd like to think had great integrity.
"This
is an area where there is a great deal of room for improvement"
He
said information exchange agreements were "pretty useless"
as they work on an on-request mdoel
He
said there should be automatic information exchange when trusts are
set up.
The
so-called Panama Papers are sold to us as a vast leak chronicling the
financial misdeeds of the rich and powerful. But is this really the
case? Certainly we are given insight into the secretive world of
offshore banking, but is it a complete and balanced story? One
interpretation of the Panama Papers is the West targeting its
enemies.
CrossTalking
with Mitch Feierstein, Alexander Mercouris, and Pepe Escobar.
Panama
Papers Cameron faces probe over tax scandal
Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn claimed Mr Cameron had “misled the public”
and “lost the trust of the British people”.
And
Labour MP John Mann said he would report the Prime Minister to the
parliamentary watchdog for not revealing the shares earlier. He said:
“He’s got to resign.”
The
storm follows the Panama Papers leak of millions of files revealing
how the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes.
There
is no suggestion Mr Cameron or his father Ian have done anything
illegal.
But
pressure piled on the PM last night as bookies halved odds that he
would step down this year.
Celebrities
joined the calls for him to quit.
Pop
star Lily Allen said: “I will be protesting at No10 tomorrow.”
Meanwhile
Mr Cameron was mocked on social media.
A
meme of TV priest Father Ted declared: “That money was just resting
in my account.”
Corbyn
says David Cameron has 'misled the public' and lost their trust
Labour
leader calls for the Prime Minister to give a "full account of
all his private financial dealings" to Parliament
David
Cameron has “misled the public” and “lost the trust of the
British people”, Jeremy Corbyn has claimed amid the furore over the
Prime Minister's stake in his father’s offshore fund.
In
a fierce attack the Labour leader demanded that Mr Cameron make a
statement to Parliament on Monday to give a "full account of all
his private financial dealings", claiming the revelations raised
questions about "personal integrity".
Mr
Cameron, who admitted on Thursday that he made a £19,000 profit from
selling his shareholding in Bahama-based Blairmore Holdings in 2010,
is also facing a parliamentary investigation into whether he should
have declared the windfall in the Commons register of interests.
In
his first intervention since Mr Cameron’s disclosure, Mr Corbyn
said: “It took five weasel-worded statements in five days for the
Prime Minister to admit that he has personally profited from an
undeclared Caribbean tax haven investment deal.
“His
determination to conceal that arrangement over many years raises
serious questions over public trust in his office and his willingness
to be straight with the public.
“Tolerance
of tax avoidance and tax havens, and inaction on tax evasion, is
denying funds to the public purse and leads directly to cuts in
services and benefits that are hurting millions of people in Britain.
“The
Prime Minister has lost the trust of the British people. He must now
give a full account of all his private financial dealings and make a
statement to Parliament next week. Only complete openness from the
Prime Minister, and decisive action against tax avoidance and
evasion, can now deal with the issues at the heart of this scandal.”
The
Labour MP John Mann, who has called for the Prime Minister to resign,
said he would ask the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn
Hudson, to examine whether Mr Cameron should have declared his
profits from the sale of his trust shares in the Commons register of
interests.
A
Downing Street spokesman said: “The Prime Minister’s interests
have always been recorded in line with the rules as they stood at the
time.”
But
Mr Mann said: “No interpretation of his actions could conclude that
he has acted in an ‘open and frank’ way, in line with the code of
conduct for MP.
“It
is only now, with the Panama revelations, that David Cameron has been
forced to admit that he did not register his financial interests.”
The
move was backed by the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, who
described Mr Cameron’s actions as “morally murky” and said he
was sure there was a case for investigation.
Meanwhile,
Labour MPs called for other Government ministers to publish their tax
returns, after both Mr Cameron and Mr Corbyn committed to do so.
Wes
Streeting, a Labour member of the House of Commons Treasury Select
Committee, said that political leaders needed to reassure the public
in the wake of the Panama leaks.
“People
around the world are asking their political leaders to display
openness and transparency about their tax affairs, to work out if
they have a conflict of interest, and that they mean it when they say
want to crack down on avoidance and evasion,” he said.
“In
the UK, that particularly includes the Chancellor and those who
aspire to be Prime Minister.”
Chancellor
George Osborne, Home Secretary Theresa May, Business Secretary Sajid
Javid and Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond have all been contacted
by The Independent to clarify whether they will publish their tax
returns. As of Friday evening, only Mr Hammond’s spokesperson had
replied, saying Mr Hammond was “travelling abroad and not
contactable”
The
political fall-out from the leak of the Panama Papers from law firm
Mossack Fonseca was underlined by a YouGov poll showing Mr Cameron’s
personal approval ratings had fallen below Jeremy Corbyn’s for the
first time.
It
also found that that 56 per cent of the public did not believe the
Prime Minister had been “open and honest” about his tax affairs,
with just 18 per cent taking the opposite view.
Downing
Street is scrambling to draw a line under the affair, which has
wrecked Mr Cameron’s hopes of spending the week focussing on the
European Union referendum membership campaign. It is expected to
publish the Prime Minister’s tax returns over the last six years by
Sunday.
Mr
Cameron and his wife, Samantha, bought their holding in Blairmore in
1997 for £12,497 and sold it for £31,500 shortly before he became
Prime Minister in 2010.
Income
tax was paid on the dividends, but the profit on the sale was just
below the capital gains tax threshold for a couple.
The
Commons rules at the time of Mr Cameron’s sale said such holdings
were “not generally registrable”, although they reminded MPs that
the “general principle” of the register was “openness”.
Protesters
against Mr Cameron’s links to offshore funds are planning to
demonstrate outside Downing Street on Saturday
‘Cameron
shouldn’t just resign… he should be sent to prison!’ Ken
Livingstone tells RT
Prime
Minister David Cameron should be sent to prison for profiting from
shares in his father’s offshore investment fund, former Mayor of
London Ken Livingstone has told RT.
Livingstone
said the Panama Papers scandal is “incredibly damaging” for the
PM.
Belgium:
Assange says Panama Papers not published in full due to legal fears
WikiLeaks
co-founder Julian Assange said European media organisations were not
publishing the Panama Papers in full due to fears of litigation at
the hands of oligarchs, during a Skype conference with journalists
that was broadcast in Brussels, Thursday.
"The
experience from the United States, it has been disastrous,"
Assange said, explaining that "trade secrets law is used to
create taxes on publishers, who publish quotes - say from internal
emails: like we've seen here with the Pentagon Papers - the Panama
Papers."
US
State Department Unable to Explain Difference Between Panama &
Snowden Revelations
The
US State Department has stated that it supported the work of the
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, who published an
archive of Panamanian documents, which contains information from the
law firm Mossack Fonseca. The experts' attention was drawn to the
fact that previously in such a situation, the State Department took
the opposite position: in 2013, the US government called Edward
Snowden's revelations a betrayal, and said that the declassification
of information is a crime.
The
single-story brick building at 1209 North Orange St. in downtown
Wilmington, United States, looks bland and innocuous. But the
building, home to the Corporation Trust Company, has an intriguing
claim to fame. In the last few years, it has served as the registered
address for more than 250,000 businesses, giving companies around the
world access to Delaware's business-friendly laws.
During
his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized Caribbean tax
havens.
He
mentioned one building in the Cayman Islands that is the registered
home of more than 12,000 US-based corporations, saying, "That's
either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam on
record." But as the example of 1209 North Orange St. demonstrates,
the same activity is going on in President Obama's backyard.
A
massive leak of confidential documents from Mossack Fonseca, a law
firm in Panama that helped wealthy clients set up anonymous companies
in tax havens, is highlighting how the global offshore industry
secretly invests massive amounts of wealth around the globe. The 11
million leaked documents cover 40 years of the law firm's operations
and allegedly touch on the financial dealings of 12 current or former
heads of state, as well as 60 more people linked to world leaders.
The
documents, which have not been reviewed by The
Washington Post, allege connections among offshore
accounts set up by Mossack Fonseca and money laundering, bribery and
tax evasion, among other charges, according to The Guardian, the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and other
publications that accessed the documents.
Mossack
Fonseca largely helped its clients set up offshore accounts in the
kind of tropical locations that people typically think of as tax
havens - the British Virgin Islands, Panama, the Bahamas and the
Seychelles - countries that do play a big role in shuttling the
wealth of the world's richest people around the globe.
But
one of the least recognized facts about the global offshore industry
is that much of it, in fact, is not offshore. Indeed, some critics of
the offshore industry say the US is now becoming one of the world's
largest "offshore" financial destinations.
We
often say that the US is one of the easiest places to set up
so-called anonymous shell companies.
"We
often say that the US is one of the easiest places to set up
so-called anonymous shell companies," says Mark Hays, a senior
advisor with Global Witness, an NGO that advocates for financial
transparency.
Offshore
isn't so much a destination anymore as "a set of capabilities,"
which include ensuring secrecy, minimizing taxes, managing assets,
and providing clients security and access to their wealth from
anywhere in the world, James Henry, a senior adviser to the Tax
Justice Network and former chief economist of McKinsey & Co,
wrote in a 2012 report. The Tax Justice Network ranks the US third in
terms of the secrecy and scale of its offshore industry, behind
Switzerland and Hong Kong but ahead of the Cayman Islands and
Luxembourg.
Panama
City. Photo / iStock
A
2012 study in which researchers sent more than 7,400 email
solicitations to more than 3,700 corporate service providers -- the
kind of companies that typically register shell companies, such as
the Corporation Trust Company at 1209 North Orange St. -- found that
the US had the laxest regulations for setting up a shell company
anywhere in the world outside of Kenya. The researchers impersonated
both low- and high-risk customers, including potential money
launderers, terrorist financiers and corrupt officials.
Contrary
to popular belief, notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands,
Jersey and the Bahamas were far less permissive in offering the
researchers shell companies than states such as Nevada, Delaware,
Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York, the researchers found.
Part
of the reason that the US looks so attractive as a tax and secrecy
haven is that the country has not signed on to new global disclosure
standards that are forcing anonymous companies to reveal their real
owners around the world. Compared with other developed countries, and
even traditional offshore destinations such as Switzerland and the
British Virgin Islands, the US now appears to be among the most
lenient and secure destinations for the fortunes of the global rich.
In
some places [in the US], it's easier to incorporate a company than it
is to get a library card.
Since
the late 1990s, the "onshore-offshore" market in the US has
blossomed, as states have competed with each other to provide
inexpensive limited liability corporations and asset protection
trusts with levels of secrecy and tax advantages similar to those of
traditional offshore havens, writes Henry of the Tax Justice Network.
In
many American states, people registering shell companies do not need
to show a form of identification, like a driver's license or
passport, and corporate service providers aren't required to verify
the identity of the person who owns the company, called "the
beneficial owner," or know what the company is for. The
beneficial owner may be asked to give their name, address and phone
number, but for an additional fee, the corporate service provider can
provide a "nominee" to take their place as the public face
of the company -- a person who controls the company in name but not
in reality, disguising the beneficial owner's identity.
"In
some places [in the US], it's easier to incorporate a company than it
is to get a library card," Joseph Spanjers of Global Financial
Integrity, a research and advocacy organization that wants to curtail
illicit financial flows, said in an interview earlier this year.
There's
nothing inherently wrong with shell companies, which are inactive
companies without assets or operations. Sometimes shell companies are
used for legitimate purposes, such as when companies use them to
temporarily conceal the development of a new product until its
release, or make an investment in a new technology without alerting
competitors. Anonymous companies also help protect the privacy of
wealthy individuals, including hiding personal wealth to diminish the
risk of kidnapping.
A
marquee of the Mossack Fonseca law firm, in Panama City. Photo / AP
Too
often, however, shell companies are used as a vehicle for criminal
activity -- disguising wealth from tax authorities, financing
terrorism, concealing fraudulent schemes, or laundering funds from
corruption or the trafficking in drugs, people and arms. A report
published by Global Witness in 2014 detailed some of the nefarious
purposes shell companies have been used for in the US, including
setting up sham companies that tricked elderly people into investing
in worthless business schemes, laundering millions of dollars from
Mexican drug cartels, accepting political bribes, and circumventing
US sanctions against Iran.
Critics
of the industry say that those worried about these practices must be
concerned about anonymous companies, which are instrumental in
funding and concealing them from law enforcement investigations.
In
the secretive offshore industry, estimates for how much money is
invested through shell companies registered in the U.S. are hard to
come by. But anecdotes suggest that this laxity of regulation has led
to the creation of many anonymous companies in the US that could be
used for nefarious purposes. US firms are legally prohibited from
knowingly helping customers to avoid taxes, but they can offer them
privacy and secrecy, and ask very few questions.
Washington's
independent-minded approach risks tearing a giant hole in
international efforts to crack down on tax evasion, money laundering
and financial crime.
Reporting
by Bloomberg detailed
how lawyers, trust companies and financial firms including Rothschild
are moving offshore accounts from locations such as Switzerland and
Grand Cayman Islands into the U.S. to take advantage of the country's
relative lax regulations. Nearly half of residential properties
purchases of over $5 million made in the US in the last few years
were carried out by anonymous shell companies, data analyzed by
the New York Times has
shown.
These
trends are in part the result of changing global regulations since
the financial crisis, which are making the US look even more
appealing as a financial destination.
Since
the financial crisis, developed countries have led a crackdown on
global tax havens, as a way to recover revenue and mitigate
skyrocketing inequality. In 2010, the United States implemented
legislation called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA,
in hopes of catching American tax cheats. The law required financial
firms around the world to report accounts held by US citizens to the
Internal Revenue Service - or else face being frozen out of the US
financial system.
[Americans]
discovered that they really don't need to go to Panama.
In
response, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
a group of 34 advanced countries, drew up its own tough tax
disclosure requirements, called Common Reporting Standards, and asked
roughly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world to approve
them. Only a handful of countries have refused, including Bahrain,
Vanuatu and the United States.
The
United States argues that since its program is similar to Europe's,
it doesn't need to join it - instead, the United States plans to sign
bilateral agreements with other countries. But in the interim, the
United States is not providing European countries with the kind of
data it is requesting from them -- creating an incentive for
financial firms to move their business to the United States. The
result is, basically, a "disaster," says the Tax Justice
Network, a research and advocacy group.
"Washington's
independent-minded approach risks tearing a giant hole in
international efforts to crack down on tax evasion, money laundering
and financial crime," the group says in a report on the US.
European
countries are passing other regulations to lift the veil on the kind
of secrecy shell companies create. The U.K. has created a public
registry for companies, which allows anyone to freely look up the
beneficial owners of all British companies. Meanwhile, the EU has
passed a sweeping anti-monetary directive, under which countries are
setting up company registries that will be available to law
enforcement, as well as the public and the media by special request.
In
the US, Global Witness and other groups are pushing for similar
legislation. Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Peter King, R-N.Y.,
and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have introducing a bill calling
for all shell companies registered in the US to report their real
owner, called a "beneficial owner."
But
the bill has faced resistance from Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming and
other states through an organization called the National Association
of Secretaries of State, who worry about the loss of tax revenues and
the burden of regulation.
So
far, the documents from Mossack Fonseca have not implicated American
politicians or other wealthy people, according to Fusion, which
reviewed the leaked material. Those names may yet emerge, though, in
an interview with Fusion, Henry of the Tax Justice Network suggests
that there is a reason for their absence.
The
US has an onshore haven industry that is as secretive as anywhere,
Henry said. "[Americans] discovered that they really don't need
to go to Panama."
Panama
is new Switzerland of this world, US preparing for big financial
crisis’ – Ernst Wolf
Washington
is behind the recently released offshore revelations known as the
Panama Papers, WikiLeaks has claimed, saying that the attack was
“produced” to target Russia and President Putin.
Journalist
and author Ernst Wolf talks to RT on Panama Papers
Selective
Leaks Of The #Panama Papers Create Huge Blackmail Potential. “Smear
People the U.S. Dislikes”
A
real leak of data from a law firm in Panama would be very
interesting. Many rich people and/or politicians hide money in shell
companies that such firms in Panama provide. But the current heavily
promoted “leak”of
such data to several NATO supporting news organization and a US
government financed “Non Government Organization” is just a lame
attempt to smear some people the U.S. empire dislikes. It also
creates a huge blackmail opportunity by NOT publishing certain data
in return for this or that desired favor.
Already
some 16 month ago Ken Silverstein reported for Vice on
a big shady shell company provider, Mossak Fonseca in Panama. (Pierre
Omidyar’s Intercept,
for which Silverstein was then working,refused to
publish the piece.) Yves Smith published several
big stories about
the Mossak Fonseca money laundering business. Silverstein also
repeated the well known fact that Rami Makhlouf, a rich cousin of the
Syrian president Assad, had some money hidden in Mossak Fonseca shell
companies. He explains:
To
conduct business, shell companies like Drex need a registered agent,
sometimes an attorney, who files the required incorporation papers
and whose office usually serves as the shell’s address. This
process creates a layer between the shell and its owner, especially
if the dummy company is filed in a secrecy haven where ownership
information is guarded behind an impenetrable wall of laws and
regulations. In Makhlouf’s case—and, I discovered, in the case of
various other crooked businessmen and international gangsters—the
organization that helped incorporate his shell company and shield it
from international scrutiny was a law firm called Mossack Fonseca,
which had served as Drex’s registered agent from July 4, 2000, to
late 2011.
A
year ago someone provided tons
of data from Mossak Fonseca to a German newpaper, theSueddeutsche
Zeitung.
The Munich daily is politically on the center right and staunchly pro
NATO. It cooperates with the Guardian,
the BBC, Le
Monde,
the International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists and
some other news organization who are all known supporters of the
establishment.
TheSudDeutsche Zeitung claims
that the “leaked” data is about some 214,000 shell companies and
14,000 Mossak Fonseca clients. There is surely a lot of hidden dirt
in there. How many U.S. Senators are involved in such companies?
Which European Union politicians? What are the big Wall Street banks
and hedge funds hiding in Panama? Oh, sorry. The Sueddeutsche and
its partners will not answer those questions. Here is how they
“analyzed” the data:
The
journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international
criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The
digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the
names on these lists. The “party donations scandal” list
contained 130 names, and the UN sanctions list more than 600. In just
a few minutes, the powerful search algorithm compared the lists with
the 11.5 million documents.For each name found, a detailed research
process was initiated that posed the following questions: what is
this person’s role in the network of companies? Where does the
money come from? Where is it going? Is this structure legal?
Essentially
the SudDeutsche compiled
a list of known criminals and people and organizations the U.S.
dislikes and cross checked them with the “leaked” database.
Selected hits were then further evaluated. The outcome are stories
like the annualattempt to smear the
Russian president Putin, who is not even mentioned in the Mossak
Fonseca data, accusations against various people of the soccer
association FIFA, much disliked by the U.S., and a few mentions of
other miscreants of minor relevancy.
There
is no story about any U.S. person, none at all, nor about any
important NATO politician. The highest political “casualty” so
far is the
irrelevant Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson
who, together with his wife, owned one of the shell companies. There
is no evidence that the ownership or the money held by that company
were illegal.
So
where is the beef?
As
former UK ambassador Craig Murray writes,
the beef (if there is any at all) is in what is hidden by the
organizations that manage the “leak”:
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)
The
“leak” is of data selected by U.S. friendly organization out of a
database, likely obtained by U.S. secret services, which can be
assumed to include much dirt about “western” persons and
organizations.
To
only publish very selected data from the “leaked” data has two
purposes:
It
smears various “enemies of the empire” even if only by
association like the presidents Putin and Assad.
It
lets other important people, those mentioned in the database but not
yet published about, know that the U.S. or its “media partner”
can, at any time, expose their dirty laundry to the public. It is
thereby a perfect blackmailing instrument.
The
engineered “leak” of the “Panama Papers” is a limited hangout
designed to incriminate a few people and organization the U.S.
dislikes. It is also a demonstration of the “torture tools” to
the people who did business with Mossak Fonseca but have not (yet)
been published about. They are now in the hands of those who control
the database. They will have to do as demanded or else …
Posts
Panama
City. Photo / iStock
