UBS: so much more than tax dodging
James Moore: Lets tackle bank secrecy – everywhere - Business Comment, Business - The Independent.
The spotlight that is now (belatedly) shining down on UBS is showing up some very ugly things. It now appears that the vast majority of the thousands of wealthy people whose account details are to be handed to the US authorities are suspected of serious fraud rather than just common or garden tax evasion. According to the Swiss authorities, that is.
The financial details of about 4,450 UBS clients are to be handed over, and 4,200 of them are suspected of “advanced and serious fraud”.
A further 250 are suspected of the lesser offences of tax dodging.
Note the ratio: 94% serious fraud, 6% straight tax evasion.
But still the secrecy jurisdictions squeal when I accuse them of fostering crime.
Get real: you do foster crime. That’s why you promote secrecy. It has no other purpose. You know that. And you are as guilty for doing so.
When is tax evasion not tax evasion?
If you’re Swiss and it’s on a balance of under a $1 million dollars apparently
Per STEP:
American clients of Swiss bank UBS will be identified to the US authorities if their accounts hold more than a million Swiss francs ($985,000), the Swiss Justice Ministry has announced. If fraudulent conduct is proven the threshold will be only SFr250,000, in accordance with a Swiss-American deal struck in August but only published now.
http://www.step.org/showarticle.pl?id=2764
Richard
What does ‘advanced and serious fraud’ mean?
As tax evasion is a form of fraud its not clear what else has been uncovered.
Colman
I think we can pretty safely assume that the capital has been fraudulently placed in Switzerland: it is not just the income earned on it that has been subject to tax evasion.
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Richard,
Although I don’t expect you to agree with this, I will point out that Switzerland has got some well-established money laundering procedures and I doubt that UBS, as intellectually challenged as they have been demonstrated to be throughout this affair, would have willingly broken these rules and knowingly accepted outright criminal money.
Advanced and serious fraud probably refers to the concealments of relevant facts (for instance a failure to disclose sole- or dual US citizenship when opening the account) and other forms of deception; nothing that would make headline material.
@Edouard (London expat)
Don’t be crass
They smuggled diamonds
They willingly broke criminal law in the US
Do you really think we’re all stupid enough to believe you?
@Richard Murphy
Richard, can I check who the recently published rules relate to? Whilst I appreciate this is your blog and you can set the rules, why do you reduce the impact of your arguments by being rude to people?
I have to admit that whilst I disagree with your general philosophy, I support your views on the more egregious examples of corporate wrong doing. However, your use of language when someone disagrees with you reduces the impact and importance of your points.
We have jousted before on the subject of passion (George Osborne being the topic of the time) and I agree that passion is important in putting over an argument or view. Uncontrolled passion, despite someone offering an alternative, does you no favours
Richard
You mean you take exception to me saying someone who says UBS would not break the law is being crass?
How would you like me to put it?
Richard
@Richard
I would have pointed out that the facts do not support his point of view (which they absolutely do not).
Richard
OK
Except I wanted to make clear it was more than a mistake
Richard