I think it’s worth reiterating something I blogged yesterday because it is so significant.

As the Guardian reports:

A scathing report by regulator says top financial institutions seem ready to ignore allegations of criminality in pursuit of lucrative clients

As it continues:

The City of London is showing brazen disregard for rules to stop money laundering and is welcoming with open arms some of the world’s most unsavoury political leaders and their cronies, according to a damning report by the Financial Services Authority.

The detailed study showed a third of banks were willing to dismiss serious allegations of corruption made repeatedly by credible sources, while others claimed to have run extensive money-laundering checks even though they had failed to spot grave allegations of criminality instantly found by a simple Google search.

More than a quarter of banks were only too delighted to offer services to controversial foreign politicians on the basis that credible allegations of corruption had not yet resulted in a criminal conviction.

Of course this is what Nick Shaxson, the Tax Justice Network, I and others have been arguing has been happening for years. We knew it was happening.

And we know that the same banks that operate in London do the same thing in tax havens – they are the same banks after all.

But we’ve always been told “we’re well regulated – we’ve got all the right pieces of paper in place’.

“Sure”, we’ve said, “you’ve got them in place. But you fill them in incorrectly  or don’t act on the data you record. That’s the reality.”

That’s what we’ve said for a long time. Now we know it’s true.

But will prosecutions follow?

Will banks be ordered to shut operations?

Will funds be frozen?

No – of course not. Why not, David Cameron?

Why not George Osborne?

Are you on the side of the crooks? Because if nothing happens that’s all we can conclude.

Jun 232011
 

Governments throughout Europe continue to give tax handouts to bankers and big business while cutting back on public services for old people, sick people, children and those in need.

We have clear choices ahead of us: we need to resist the tax handouts without control being taken of the banks. We need to resist the tax haven economy. We need to support our welfare services. Most of all we need to protect democracy from the deep pockets of the banks, hedge funds, and other special interests.

UK Uncut has released a short and fun video calling for activists to take to the streets in support of industrial actions to protect vital public services on 30 June.

They’re right to do so.

Which is why I suggest you watch it here.

 

The FT has reported:

Nick Clegg wants to give every British voter shares in the state-owned banks as the deputy prime minister looks to revive his battered image by creating a “people’s banking system”.

Mr Clegg told the Financial Times he had written to George Osborne and Danny Alexander at the Treasury this week, asking them to look into introducing a “mass share-ownership scheme” as part of the privatisation of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group.

“Psychologically it is immensely important that the British public feel they have not just been overlooked and ignored,” Mr Clegg said from Rio de Janeiro, where he is on a two-day trade trip.

“Their money has been used to the tune of billions to keep the British banking system on a life support system and they have absolutely no say at all in what happens when normality is restored.”

He added: “I think in a sense as a society we are condemned to take an interest in our banking system.”

This idea is bad enough to be called bananas.

For the record: I’m all in favour of mutualisation. It is what should happen at Northern Rock.

And I’m all in favour of nationalisation - which is what should happen at RBS so it can become the Royal Bank of Sustainability and be at the core of economic regeneration in this country. It could also then partner such essential projects as the Post Bank which will open access to banking to more people in this country and could be used as the mechanism to end the curse of doorstep lending.

But Clegg’s not proposing either of those things. Hes proposing giving shares away. Who to, I wonder? Direct taxpayers? That’s about half the country. Those on the electoral roll ? Millions aren’t on that? Those who apply? We know that many would not?

And isn’t he aware that such schemes have rise to the concentration of power in the hands of the oligarchs in Russia?

And maybe also he should be aware that a company with a massively diverse shareholder base, none of whom vote because none of whom think they have any influence, is susceptible to control by a small minority of shareholders who can capture a block of shares at modest cost?

And therein I think lies his plan: this is about letting a minority have control at remarkably little cost whilst they exploit the state that will have given them that opportunity and the rest of us who would be taken for a ride.

That’s modern liberalism for you – capturing the state for private benefit  and this plan is a classic of that type of exercise.

You can either think Clegg has really lost his marbles on this one – or it is a ‘cunning plan’ to achieve his ultimate goal of control of the state by a minority. I suspect it’s the latter. Either way it’s unacceptable. These banks need strong control in the interests of society – not least because the chance of another bailout being needed soon is very high. That’s nationalisation – not this cock-eyed mechanism for delivering minority control for an elite.

 

Global Witness is a partner of Tax Research LLP in the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development. Global Witness has done stunning work on corruption issues and so it was right that today it welcomed recognition by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that the majority of Britain’s banks are failing to do enough to identify corrupt money from abroad and that it is ‘likely that some banks are handling the proceeds of corruption’.

Global Witness has repeatedly called for a new approach by the regulator to identify and punish those banks that fail in their requirements to identify their customers and their source of funds, particularly customers who are senior officials of other countries, known in the industry as ‘politically exposed persons’ (PEPs).

‘Many of the failings identified by the FSA are the same as those it found ten years ago after £1 billion stolen from Nigeria by Sani Abacha came through London banks. This reflects terribly on the FSA’s softly-softly approach over the last decade, and makes it very clear why Egypt is now seeking the return of corrupt Mubarak funds from the UK. Neither dictatorship nor corruption can occur without banks willing to help,’ said Anthea Lawson, head of the banks campaign at Global Witness.

‘For too long Britain’s banks have been happy to accept money stolen from developing countries by corrupt rulers and their families. This review shows we need a radical new approach from the banks, and a strong commitment from the FSA to ongoing monitoring and punishment which acts as a proper deterrent; they cannot wait another ten years then do a review of what’s gone wrong,’ said Lawson.

Last year Global Witness revealed that HSBC, Barclays, Natwest, RBS and UBS had accepted millions of pounds for two Nigerian state governors who had been accepting bribes. British aid to Nigeria is set to double by 2014; Global Witness believes the impact of this UK taxpayers’ money is undermined if British banks are facilitating corruption and the loss of Nigeria’s oil income.

Most recently, Barclays was revealed to have allowed Teodorin Obiang, son of the president of Equatorial Guinea, to purchase 18 million Euros of art auctioned from the estate of the late Yves St Laurent, through an Obiang-controlled company account held with the bank. Teodorin earns a salary of about $6,000 a month as a minister in his father’s government yet is renowned for his luxurious tastes, including a $35m mansion in California.

The FSA’s findings include:

  • Three quarters of banks reviewed are not doing enough to establish the legitimacy of their customers’ source of wealth – some in situations where they had adverse information about their customer’s integrity;
  • At least two banks have been referred to enforcement with ‘serious weaknesses’ in their systems and controls for managing high-risk customers, including PEPs;
  • A third of banks are failing to do enough to identify PEPs;
  • Half of banks are not reviewing their high risk and PEP relationships regularly;
  • A third of banks dismissed serious allegations about their customers without adequate review;
  • A third of banks do not keep adequate records of their high-risk and PEP customers, impeding their ability to assess money laundering risk;
  • Some banks had inadequate safeguards to mitigate conflicts of interest on the part of their relationship managers;
  • Many relationship managers are rewarded primarily on the basis of profit and new business, regardless of their performance on anti-money laundering issues;
  • There is inadequate handling of the risks presented by correspondent banking relationships.

 

The next banking crisis is not being deferred as George Osborne hoped. It’s very clear that sometime sooner or later Greece is going to default. The hope is that it is done in orderly fashion with political stability maintained: the risk is that will not be achieved. If a Euro exit can be negotiated then Ireland and Portugal will follow suit, and maybe Spain and Italy too (Berlusconi’s grip on power is fading and with it unity and the capacity to manage its debt).

All of this means that the capital of our banks is at threat again. Insolvency is almost inevitable once more. Let’s not beat about the bush: the risk that it’s going to happen is very real. It’s not certain. I attach no probability on a date. But it looks likely.

I sincerely hope we are better prepared this time.

We will need to nationalise. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

And we will need to print money – to do quantitative easing to ensure that they’re solvent.

But this time we need to do more than that: we need to ensure that the money is then re-sued in the real economy. That’s why nationalisation will be important – short term shareholder interest must not divert funds this time. There is a way to do that – explained here.

And this time we will need to reconvene Bretton Woods. The challenge we face is as big as that in 1944: we have a broken system and a need to build afresh. We have to ensure we get it right. The re-emergence of neoliberalism so soon after 2008 has plunged us into the current crisis. Surely it’s time to move on collectively and start without the encumbrance of that failed thinking?

 

I’m travelling back from speaking at the Worcester Literary Festival.

It was a long way to go and the audience was somewhat smaller than the thousand or more I spoke to in Blackpool last week – but they were an exciting lot! When I saw that I was scheduled from 1pm to 3pm I thought there was some mistake – surely we weren’t doing two hours.

Actually I was wrong – they let me go at 3.30!

I really enjoyed the chance to discuss a wide range of issues from the tax gap, tax havens, country-by-country reporting, economics and all that’s wrong with it, why the government’s thinking on the deficit is so wrong, why the left has lost courage, Quakers and business and much, much more.

I really enjoyed myself and the vast majority of the audience who stayed to the end semd to do so as well.

Now for the tour…..

 

I watched some of Evan Davis’ programme on BBC2 last night and yelled almost constantly at the crass stupidity of his understanding of economics.

His hypothesis is that because we as a nation don’t save enough we don’t have the manufacturing we need.

It’s hard to describe how staggeringly wrong this is. It is as if none of the economic understanding of the last 75 years had happened.

Davis lives in a terribly simple world. He seems to genuinely believe that if people do not put money in banks than banks cannot lend. It seems he’s never heard of fractional reserve banking or the fact that banks can literally make money out of thin air.

And worse, he thinks all the money we put into pensions then goes on to create productive capacity in the economy. That’s so naive it’s just ridiculous. But for the record:

a) A significant slug of all pension contributions is raked off by the City. How do you think they get so fat when pensions have shown no real return for a decade or more?

b) About 60% of all pension fund cash is still in equities (although the number moves a bit over time. Since almost no new equities are issued this simply means that this money is used to buy second hand bits of paper – called shares already in issue. That’s why the stock market is valued as it is now – quite irrationally. We face Euro meltdown and the markets at 5,700 or more – because day in day out clueless pension fund managers buy shares hat are kept in short supply because no new ones are issued – and so it will go on until the next big crash when they’ll lose vast amounts – and then start putting money back in the market all over again.

c) They also buy second hand land and buildings.

d) They buy some bonds – and yes I agree – this tiny propertion of their actrivity might result in job creation.

But nothign else pensions do creates jobs – or manufacturing or anything else. Credit does that – and Davis shows himself to be economically ignorant (sorry to be so blunt – but it seems like a statement of truth to me) to argue otherwsie.

No wonder we have no manufacturing then – we’re clueless about how to fund it, and repeat that cluelessness on television to ensure that people remain in ignorance.

The BBC should hang its head in shame at broadcasting such nonsense.

 

The Isle of Man Today web site has noted:

THERE will be a public announcement if any changes of substance are to be made to the VAT sharing arrangement, the Chief Minister told the House of Keys.

Tony Brown revealed in an exclusive interview with the Examiner last month that the UK continues to press to take another substantial slice off our VAT revenue.

He said the UK had made its intentions quite clear that the VAT share the island should receive should be no more than we would collect if we were independent.

And he said if the UK pressed ahead with this, it would mean a substantial cut in government revenue on top of the 25 per cent loss resulting from the last VAT bombshell.

Well, let me make the announcement for him then, since he seems so reluctant to do so.

My information makes it very, very clear that this reform is going to happen.

As I noted last September:

Rumour reaches me that we should shortly see announcement of a massive increase in GDP in the Isle of Man.

Why could that be? Well, the VAT sharing agreement with the UK happens to be based on ratios related to relative GDP. So if the Isle of Man manages to report a significant GDP increase whilst the UK’s in the doldrums of near recession guess who wins significantly? Yes, our friends in the Irish Sea.

But surely they wouldn’t do such a thing, would they?

They were stupid enough to go ahead despite the warning as to how it would be received in the UK Treasury that I gave. And as I showed, their claim that the resulting revised GDP was ‘correct’ was utterly spurious – despite their furious briefing to the contrary.

Well, more rumours reach me, and yet again they suggest that I’m right on this issue. The UK Treasury is furious with the Isle of Man for this blatant attempt to re-jig the data on which the Common Purse Agreement governing the sharing of VAT revenues is based. And as a result they’re not just looking at revising the agreement using the data I have noted, they’re arguing the Isle of Man has been blatantly manipulating its VAT, for example by encouraging the film industry and yacht registration to distort its apparent VAT position.

The result is that The UK ate not just arguing the GDP data is wrong – they’re seeking to take these other factors, which are seen as tax haven abuse, out of account too.

It’s the price you pay for playing fast and loose, and as a result the peope of the Isle of Man will pay a heavy price.

It’s time their Chief Minister told them the truth – because if I know this you can be sure he does too. But only one of us is saying it.

I have not yet worked out what the change may be –  I have the data to do so, but not the time. But if it’s as tough as I suspect the impact on the Isle of Man this time may be as significant as last time. After all – it’s just not true as the Isle of Man claims that for VAT purposes income per head there is £45,000 – some £17,000 or more a year in excess of the UK. And even if it was – the UK should not be subsidising it!

There are tough times ahead in the Irish Sea – and it’s all the fault of the Isle of Man politicians who tried to pull a fast one.

 

The Scottish Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility is a new organisation, launched this month. It says of itself that it:

is an independent, non-party political coalition

As far as it goes  that may be true. But in The Scotsman this morning it was arguing for tax competition.

And on its web site it argues for greater fiscal freedom for Scotland as if this would somehow get round the EU requirements on a cut in the grant from Westminster – which it would not.

Typically for such an organisation, no indication of its funding is provided on its web site.

So this seems to be like so many so called think tanks not about thinking at all, but all about promoting the neoliberal mantra that tax competition is good.

It’s left Ireland bust.

It brought the world to crisis in 2008.

The Crown Dependencies are heading for bankruptcy.

But still they argue for this policy of destruction.

I sincerely hope the people of Scotland take note and ignore this siren call.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha