Rumour reaches me that Jersey has failed its OECD peer review.
The OECD says of the peer review process that:
The international fight against cross-border tax evasion has entered a new phase with the launch by countries participating in the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information of a peer review process covering a first group of 18 jurisdictions: Australia, Barbados, Bermuda, Botswana, Cayman Islands, Denmark, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Jersey, Mauritius, Monaco, Norway, Panama, Qatar, San Marino, Seychelles and Trinidad & Tobago.
The reviews are a first step in a three-year process approved in February by the Global Forum in response to the call by G20 leaders at their Pittsburgh Summit in September 2009 for improved tax transparency and exchange of information.
Note Jersey is involved.
There's just one problem for them: I gather that Jersey has failed its second part of the peer review process. I understand that at least one country is saying Jersey is not exchanging information as expected under the OECD process.
Some of us aren't surprised.
Some of us might say that this blows apart all the claims Jersey makes about being a transparent, cooperative state.
But then some of us know that it's no such thing, and that's why we're not surprised.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Some of us, particularly the PSG, aren’t the least surprised that Jersey is not exchanging information under the OECD process.
READ THESE WORDS CAREFULLY. The State of Jersey is NOT a transparent and cooperative — it is devious and hypocritical in its slavish support of the island’s “finance industry”.
Avoid this place like the plague
The report on Jersey was not adopted as of yet due to an objection from Norway.
The draft report notes: ‘Phase 2 rating: To be finalised as soon as a representative subset of Phase 2 reviews is completed.’
So I do not see how can fail the second part of the review as it appears that there are a lack of requests to share information to judge them on.
And as some of us have said for a long time, the reason why there are no exchanges is that the obstacles to making a request are far too high – which Jersey is exploiting, I suspect
I confirm I believe Norway to be at least one objecting state
Is Jersey “exploiting” the exchange request system or merely operating it in the manner in which the OECD intended by drafting it in that manner?
I gather it is considered non-cooperative
From the Jersey report:
And for comparison, from the US Report:
Wrong – I think you’re quoting stage 1 report
Stage 2 has been failed
I was quoting from the revised report:
“Peer Review Report
Combined
Phase 1: Legal and Regulatory Framework; and
Phase 2: Implementation of the Standards in Practice.”
At best, there would be a further revision of the report, but I do not see how it would go from pass to fail, given these additional passages:
267. The policy of Jersey with respect to expanding its EOI network has been to negotiate agreements with jurisdictions that are either OECD or G-20 members, as well as with those jurisdictions with which it has a significant economic relationship. It has already signed agreements with 14 OECD members and has concluded agreements with a further two OECD members and three G20 members. This includes key economic partners such as the UK and France, as well as other European Union members. In respect of Guernsey, a significant partner, Jersey has advised that it is discussing possible revisions to the 1956 DTA with Guernsey, and any such revised agreement is likely to contain exchange of information provisions similar to those contained in Jersey‟s DTA with Malta which was signed in 2010.
268. Comments were sought from the jurisdictions participating in the Global Forum in the course of the preparation of this report, and no jurisdiction advised the assessment team that it was interested in entering into an EOI agreement with Jersey but that Jersey had refused to negotiate or conclude such an agreement with it.
269. Jersey has indicated that it has approached a number of other jurisdictions and indicated its willingness to negotiate a TIEA which would meet the international standards however some of the jurisdictions approached had declined to negotiate, or had not responded to Jersey‟s invitation. Jersey has noted that in some cases, its EOI partner has experienced lengthy delays after negotiating agreements in signing or completing domestic procedures to bring the agreements into force.
279. In practice, Jersey has generally been able to action the request and deliver the information to its EOI partner within 40 days. In the few instances where that has not been the case, Jersey has ensured that its EOI partner remains informed of the reason for the delay, and the progress of the request in accordance with the requirement to provide a status update under the international standard. Since January 2007, Jersey has received 36 EOI requests, made by 7 different EOI partners.
Well my sources say that the report has not been approved
And you’ve named the objector
So how can it be both approved and held up by an objection
I also note the paltry number of EOI requests – proving what I have always said, which is that this was always going to be a sham
@Fred Fry
Be assured that the Jersey “regulator” is as prejudiced towards effective regulation of the island’s financial services industry as the government is as enthusiastic about EOI requests.
Fortunately for the world the Jersey PR machine is now beginning to creak under the weight of previous misinformation manoeuvres now appearing to be inventions.
They say that every dog has its day — well Jersey has had theirs.
Documentary evidence in support of the above can be supplied.
Well it will be interesting to see how this plays out if Norway is the objector. The way the process is supposed to work is that reports get approved by the peer review committee on a ‘consensus minus 1.’ the idea being that a report can be approved despite one objection. This is setup to prevent the review jurisdiction from preventing approval of it’s own report. however, this would also prevent any other single other dissenter from killing a report as well.
Anyway, if this is the case, I should be receiving another revised report. Fascinating readings these things are. Surprises in all sorts of places. I can’t wait for the UK report to come out. It must be nearing completion.
@Fred Fry
You may find these “fascinating readings” but behind this “fascination” lies the economic destruction of three beautiful islands by governments and a finance industry totally indifferent to the welfare of their own people — and indeed the world community at large.