I have reposted the following from the Treasure Islands blog with Nick Shaxson's permission:
From The Telegraph:
Tax amnesties — such as the deal announced with Switzerland last month — help criminals gain respectability and risk turning HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) into “one of largest money-laundering operations in history” a leading barrister claims.
. . .
[Jonathan Fisher QC] described the recent agreement between the United Kingdom and Switzerland as a “grubby little deal” and claimed that further tax amnesties planned for next year “present a colossal opportunity for money launderers to legitimise the proceeds of crime”.
Indeed, indeed.
Now HMRC, which I believe to be an organisation filled with dedicated professionals whose work is tainted by its leadership, denied all this, of course:
“This is complete nonsense, there is not a shred of evidence to support these claims. HMRC has robust measures in place to prevent fraud against the tax system.”
Now first of all, they would say that, wouldn't they? But also — given that they have guaranteed secrecy to UK criminals using Swiss banks, with only very meagre avenues for obtaining information about those accounts, where you effectively have to know the information you're looking for before you ask for it, and can't use whistleblowers — how could they possibly know that it is ‘complete nonsense?'
Absence of evidence is a very different thing from evidence of absence. In the absence of evidence, and when secrecy is at the heart of the matter, we have to presume that Fisher is quite right. In fact, knowing that criminals exploit secrecy at every opportunity, how could it be otherwise?
More from the Telegraph, which has recently shown good form in asking difficult questions here:
“Last month's HMRC offer to Britons with hidden Swiss bank accounts raised questions about whether it was applying one law to very rich tax evaders and another, harsher, regime to the less wealthy.”
It did more than raise questions. This is, quite literally, and quite precisely, what HMRC has done here: create different sets of rules for different classes of people.
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:
Can HMRC actually make such an agreement binding? Surely, the first legal challenge that can show that the law is variable according to a person’s wealth would bring it crashing down. We may not have much in the way of a constitution, but I’m positive we have ‘equality before the law’ written down somewhere….
The deal was probably thought necessary to allow the money launderers and others to continue to prop up the London property market. First things first and the rest of us last.
Yes it is a grubby world out there in the tax havens and hard to clean up. But this is a good step albeit not perfect. Don’t under estimate the difficulty of getting to the tax evaders. We have come further in the last five years on this front than in the last fifty. There is still much corruption, bribery and torture in the World that we can’t get rid of so lets take the tax evaders on bit by bit and not be too disparaging about progress.
Except this isn’t progress
It’s a very poor step sideways and a bit back
It did more than raise questions. This is, quite literally, and quite precisely, what HMRC has done here: create different sets of rules for different classes of people.“Last month’s HMRC offer to Britons with hidden Swiss bank accounts raised questions about whether it was applying one law to very rich tax evaders and another, harsher, regime to the less wealthy.” It did more than raise questions. This is, quite literally, and quite precisely, what HMRC has done here: create different sets of rules for different classes of people.
Yes I do agree with the views of Hon’ble Mr.Murphy too and it’s a big havoc to the common man with justice. Thanks.