I noted yesterday that it is quite likely that parliament will next week vote to impose transparency on the UK's tax havens. Enough Tory MPs appear to be in favour to ensure an amendment to legislation proposed by Margaret Hodge will carry the day.
Today the FT reports that:
UK ministers are searching for a late compromise to prevent the Cayman Islands and other British overseas territories having to publish full ownership registers of their companies.
I hope they can live with their consciences. It must be hard to know that what you're doing is facilitating crime, corruption, inequality, exploitation, the undermining of democracy and the destruction of fair markets, all of which are what tax haven secrecy permits.
There again, these are Tory ministers. Think of what else they have facilitated. But this time they have to lose.
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:
Thanks for this exposure. Shared on FB.
same as it ever was.
It’s the FT. No real biggie there.
Why are Tory ministers “searching for a late compromise”? Apart from the “neoliberal ideology” that informs their actions , they must think they have some practical arguments in favour of secrecy that aren’t blatantly corruption, exploitation, criminality and inequality facilitating? What can these possibly be? What will their arguments be in the debate next week?
I imagine the CDs and OTs will be OK with this as long as they can operate their registers in the same way as the imperial power, i.e. companies can file whatever rubbish they like and no government body will ever check or police what is registered or penalise falsehood.
Alternatively, maybe the imperial power could put its own house in order before requiring its vassals to do likewise.
Didn’t there used to be something in an old book about planks of wood and specks of dust and the sequence in which they should be removed from their respective eyes.
PS: I’m not trying to defend tax havens but the hypocrisy coming out of the government and parliament of the world’s biggest tax haven and money laundry beggars belief.
I would agree that there is a massive difference in quality between the UK’s public register of beneficial ownership and the private registers of beneficial ownership that are already being maintained in the Crown Dependencies.
Every company formed in the Crown Dependencies has a local agent with properly checked information to hand, whereas the public register of the UK has no oversight whatsoever.
We simply do not know that is true
I hope it is
But it could just be pure BS
Local agents as effective guardians against money laundering and tax evasion? Are you serious? At least the UK Companies House data (beta anyway) is free and easily accessible for all with access to the www. When it comes to due diligence I’d rather trust shareholders in companies doing related party deals with shady offshore entities and investigative journalists driven by a desire to break a good story above time serving office clerks and their fraud facilitating bosses.
My point was simply that Richard has repeatedly suggested that the best way to get reliable beneficial ownership register in the UK would be to require the banks to file the information they receive in due diligence.
The information held by the local agents in the Crown Dependencies is exactly that because those local agents will be the ones opening the bank accounts for the companies and keeping the records on beneficial ownership. I know it probably isn’t the favoured view of many on this forum but opening bank accounts for companies in the Crown Dependencies is now a very slow and difficult process compared to the UK. This is primarily because the level of information Crown Dependency banks require is very high and consequently the amount of information that a local agent will hold is similar.
I am not saying the local agents are great gatekeepers, I am simply saying that the information is there albeit only provided to governments and tax authorities. The quality of the information on the existing private register should be very good, even if it isn’t perfect.
I accept the point that there are agents
I accept that there may be more effective account opening checks
BUT I do not accept that all those local agents tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I can accept that the information on CH beta is increasingly likely to be false/misleading/inadequate where rogues are concerned. The current halcyon days are possible only because the old system involved the curious having to pay a cost per document and this was a real disincentive to explore the database. The UK authorities had limited resources and could focus only on the big fish leaving everyone else to have to look after themselves. I can also accept that the data held by agents in BOT/CDs etc is really good stuff but the downside is that it is practically invisible to non-state stakeholders and the authorities are happy to leave it that way. In fact that’s what makes it likely to be accurate except in so far as high publicity leaks have increased the risk of discovery in the minds of the rogues. Transparency in order for ordinary shareholders and journalists to facilitate due diligence is what this is about, for me anyway, because the authorities (regulators, supervisors and police) and the compliance professionals simply can’t be relied on.
I hope Margaret Hodge gets the support needed on this important issue. This Government and others should support both this amendment and the complete reform of company law in this Country to prevent the significant abuse Companies House fails to recognize.
Not being as up to speed as I should be with the tax haven issue, I’ve spent the past day or so following an Internet trail which has thrown up more questions than it has answered. While any story that doesn’t support the prevailing wisdom is considered ‘a conspiracy theory’, the evidence thus far accumulating in my mind suggests that there is indeed a small group of very powerful Anglo-Americans who are intent on consolidating and extending their global power and tax havens are a vital ‘weapon’ or rather ‘arsenal’ in their strategic planning.
Richard, as this is very much your specialty, please forgive my naïveté and any false conclusions I’ve reached. It seems to me that what is being debated in public, i.e. Parliament, is pretty much a side show and no matter what is agreed it will not significantly affect a shift in power away from these financial criminals, for that is what they are. I’ve just watched this interview with Nicholas Shaxson, whose book ‘Treasure Islands’ was, as you know, the inspiration for last year’s documentary: “The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire” – https://vimeo.com/178210280.
Following another trail I came across an individual, Lyndon LaRouche, and his political movement that I’d never heard of. His mission is to destroy completely the ‘2nd British Empire’ (financial) and for the US to revert to what he believes to be it’s true anti-Colonial constitution and global mission, which (for anyone interested) is articulated in this recent video clip – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTmsdussIo. LaRouche is understandbly a very controversial figure and while one should be naturally cautious in accepting his version of ‘the truth’ it does seem to match up with a lot of what Nicholas Shaxson, Michael Oswald, the TJN and others have been telling us. All that is required is to join up the dots and reach a credible conclusion.
I realise it’s a hugely complex web of international subterfuge that is difficult to penetrate, but I’d be interested to have your opinion on the general premise that the ‘City of London’ is indeed outside democratic control and continues to be directly & indirectly behind most of the nefarious destabilising activities occurring in the world. Cheers 🙂
I know Nick well
You will see me thanked in the open line or two of Treasure Islands
I buy Nick’s thesis: it is one I helped develop and my own books develop it again – especially ‘Dirty Secrets’
Re there being a power elite – on this issue I think that indisputable, but do not doubt that transparency seriously threatens it. Next week is a very big deal as a result.
As for LaRouche: I have not spent much time on him as I do not think he is credible.
But what is clear is that we need to tether mobile capital: transparency helps do that
I am writing submissions to parliament on how to extend this work this afternoon.
PS:
While it’s a bit off-topic (but not entirely), and if anyone out there is interested, here’s an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast by Lyndon LaRouche entitled: “Britain’s Empire Still Enemy No. 1 of Civilized World” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zl2FBvZm9o.
Smoke & fire? There is some underlying logic to his arguments and at least he doesn’t mention reptilians or The New World Order. We, the general public, will probably never know the true identity of the puppet masters.
“I am writing submissions to parliament on how to extend this work this afternoon.”
Whoop Whoop. Pedant alert.
I hope you mean to say “I am writing submissions this afternoon to parliament on how to extend this work”
I can’t believe parliament will be able to get to grips with the problem in a single afternoon 🙂
Though I think some members would consider even that would be too long to dwell on the issue.
They could….I am writing how to do it
“I hope they can live with their consciences.”
Ahhhhh…. well…. hmmmm…. Consciences ?
You know the Tories keep harping on about a deficit….. 🙂
Thanks for that. I’d assumed you know Nicholas Shaxson and most, if not all, of the other leading protagonists, not forgetting John Christensen of course. And I publicly apologise for not mentioning you as one of the major drivers of the Tax Justice movement, which of course you are. We do rather take for granted all the blood, sweat and tears you’ve invested over the years in this crucial aspect of socio-economic and political activity. I hang my head in shame that I’ve not (yet) read ‘Dirty Secrets’ 🙁
I tend to agree about LaRouche, although I find his hypothesis re Roosevelt and Britain quite appealing. However, the fact that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 49% owned slaves suggests the founding fathers weren’t as anti-colonial as he implies.
I hope your submissions gain traction with those who can make a difference.
Thanks John
I suspect my friendship with John will now always have been the most fruitful of my working life
The compromise the Tories will seek is delay to enable friends and family to evacuate their money somewhere else not subject to mandatory disclosure.
I accept that will be the case