I guess it was almost inevitable that the Tax Justice Network would be drawn into the row on tax evasion in Jersey. And it has been, with Geoff Cook of Jersey Finance coming forward to throw the insults. As he says on his blog:
Tax evasion, avoidance, sham trusts and dark doings are all alleged, sprinkled with supporting statements from the usual culprits, including Mr Christensen of TJN, a former assistant economic adviser to the States of Jersey, ‘numerous French people chose Jersey' he is quoted as saying. TJN has form in this area and will generally slate Jersey's finance industry at any opportunity.
In the past they have described centres like Jersey in the following terms: ‘it is time that secrecy jurisdictions are recognised for what they really are: a full-on assault on the sovereignty of nation states, a direct attack on democracy, and a cancer running through the veins of contemporary capitalism.'
But not a scrap of evidence, not a single case, not even a name, are ever provided to back up these allegations, despite Mr Christensen claiming to work ‘undercover ‘ in Jersey for over a decade.
TJN periodically call for debates on the subject, a pointless exercise that would simply provide oxygen for their toxic mix of exaggerated claims and raw speculation.
Instead, if they are really concerned about wrong doing in Jersey and have evidence, they should produce it. I challenge them to do so. I don't think they can, because there isn't any evidence.
This is typical Jersey: having demanded Montfort Tadier provide evidence Geoff Cook does the same of the Tax Justice Network, ignoring in the process the evidence we have provided.
First there's the whole Financial Secrecy Index - which takes two years a time to prepare. Jersey says that is not evidence, and yet it is completely referenced to sources like the OECD, IMF, FATF and World Bank. It's evidenced all right: Jersey wants to ignore it. Maybe that's because they come seventh, for reason noted here.
Then there's the inconvenient fact that the UK thinks Jersey is full of tax evasion.
And then there's the fact that Jersey is still not fully cooperative with the European Union Savings Tax Directive - which is solely in existence to beat tax evasion. That can only be because it knows it harbours tax evaded funds.
And let's be candid; this is why there is FATCA and this is why there is to be an upgrade to the European Union Savings Tax Directive. Sattes like Germany name Jersey - and rightly so.
Soi the evidence is all on our side. We have evidenced it time and again, and a tiny number of us have made the case using a tiny budget and the world believes us. Maybe that's because the evidence, assembled time and again, most recently here, is all on our side Geoff?
And the fact is Montfort Tadier is right: finance will leave jersey - probably rather soon. I'd be looking for another job if I was you Geoff. You may need it sooner than you think. To say that Jersey's trust industry is in crisis as a result of FATCA and the European Union Savings Tax Directive is an understatement. That panic explains this current furore. Because without secrecy your industry won't exist Geoff, and have no doubt about it, after a decade of campaigning that secrecy is going to be blown away soon, whether you like it, or not.
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:
Don’t disagree, but if Christiansen really was undercover in jersey for a decade why dosent he just produce names, facts and documents to shut them up?
Well, I suspect he’s not inclined to break the law, even Jersey law
He left Jersey in 1998, 2 years prior to the enactment of Jersey’s all-crimes money laundering legislation. What he would have seen in the 10 years when he claimed to work as an outsider bears absolutely no resemblance to what anyone would find today. That was 15 years ago. The industry has changed beyond recognition since 2008, let alone between 1998 and 2008.
Who in their right mind would try to hide money in Jersey today? They would be insane to do so as its obvious that information will be exchanged (even if it hasn’t been already).
Respectfully, and as you well know, Jersey has hardly exchanged any information at all
So far it has not even complied with the basic requirements of the European Union Savings Tax Directive
Telling untruths does not help you
Richard
That is not my point at all. My point is that what John Christiansen says he may have witnessed up until 1998 is very unlikely to be remotely representative of the industry today. An awful lot of business which was around in those days has left or been wound up, but replaced by totally different business.
Do you honestly think all we say is based on an historic view?
Please can we discuss what we actually say?
And the evidence rather than your prejudices and ad hominems?
Richard
John Christensen may or may not have seen certain things that he claims to have seen when he was working in Jersey prior to 1998.
He cannot claim to have seen anything since then at first hand because he hasn’t been working there! Since then it is nothing other than heresay. The entire industry industry has changed massively in the past 5 years, let alone the previous 10 years.
I have little difficulty accepting what he says about Jersey up to 1998. I find it impossible to accept that the 1998 position has any relevance whatsoever to Jersey today.
We do not believe you
And there is no reason why we should
The same people are saying the same things
And we don’t believe the leopards have changed their spots
We just think they’ve hired some PR agents
And let’s be candid, the evidence of the ongoing corruption keeps coming
Richard
The same people do indeed appear to be saying the same things.
Just my opinion, but I think they were lying 15 years ago, possibly even 10 years ago, but are almost certainly telling the truth now!
Pull the other one
Richard,
Here is some evidence to show that Jersey’s senior politicians are available for hire. Firms can write their own laws and Jersey States offers perfunctory scrutiny with no consideration for public accountability.Critics are ostracised and silenced.
https://www.essex.ac.uk/ebs/research/working_papers/WP04-01.pdf
Thanks Prem
It might be a fact that the UK thinks Jersey is full of tax evasion, but that only tells us what the UK thinks, it doesn’t really prove anything. The UK thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction along with the UN Weapons Inspectors and the USA. We all know where that led.
Personally I don’t think anything much will be found in the Crown Dependencies, because anything that would be of interest will have relocated to another jurisidiction. Only the USA’s FATCA will unearth funds that wish to hide.
And I the process you admit the funds are there now
How bizarre
I have no idea if the funds are there or not. All I do know is that if they are then they won’t be there long enough to be found. So it is unlikely there will ever be an abundance of proof either way.
Richard
I have never claimed to be a whistleblower and would never – under any circumstance – reveal client information that crossed my desk when I worked in Jersey. That is not what I set out to do. In 1986, having just completed my masters degree – I returned to Jersey to research how tax havens were adapting to the brave new world of liberalised capital markets. This research was best undertaken from the inside, i.e. by working within the offshore financial services industry and, later, as an economic adviser to the government.
Needless to say, I saw plenty of evidence of criminality and corruption within the public and private spheres, but it was only towards the very end of my period of working in Jersey that I decided to cooperate with the Wall Street Journal in their investigation of a scandal involving a crooked forex dealer and a banking subsidiary of Swiss giant UBS. The latter later pleaded guilty to criminally reckless behaviour, but this case would never have gone to court had it not been for the tenacity of the WSJ journalist. Unsurprisingly, the Jersey authorities initially refused to investigate, probably because one of the island’s most senior politicians sat on the Board of Directors of the bank concerned, which pretty much sums up the overlapping conflicts of interest that ebb and flow through offshore Jersey.
best wishes
John
Oh, on just a random one-minute google search, you get plenty of examples. e.g.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230349/HSBC-accused-setting-thousands-tax-evading-accounts-Jersey-including-drugs-arms-dealers.html
jimmy carr
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/19/tax-scheme-jimmy-carr-hmrc
John Fredriksen
http://treasureislands.org/what-the-company-registry-in-cyprus-tax-haven-actually-looks-like/
Just for example. These stories are routinely followed by denials, ‘that was yesterday, but we’re clean today’, that’s not real evidence, and so on. Jersey will continue to deny its hosting of abuses, and TJN and others will keep pointing to them.
We will, as w both promise
Geoff Cook is to the Jersey finance industry what cigarettes are to lung cancer.
Richard in basic layman’s terms could you please answer why anybody would want to open a trust in Jersey and not in there own location. What is the big attraction with Jersey as St Helier is awash with little shiny wall plates with the names of trust company this and trust company that. Put simply why are they here? (I smell a rat).
There is no good reason to use Jersey, at all
Bar secrecy
Which opens opportunities that justify the price paid
Those opportunities are regulatory or tax abuse
That is the beginning and the end of it
And both undermine the democratic rights of other states
Non-domiciled status which gives specific tax advantages