The IMF has issued a report on its web site today but which is dated 21 March 2008. It is entitled ' Liechtenstein: Assessment of Financial Sector Supervision and Regulation'. It forms part of the IMF's regulatory review process. These are the reports which most tax havens use to claim that they are incredibly well regulated.
The review was actually undertaken in 2007. It is almost amusing to note how wrong it is. The executive summary says
The financial sector in Liechtenstein provides primarily wealth-management services, including banking, trust, other fiduciary services, investment management, and life insurance. The industry is expanding, including in the nonbanking areas, particularly investment undertakings and insurance. The success of the financial services industry reflects in part the not insignificant role of quality supervision and regulation.
We now know that this is completely untrue. We all know that the financial sector in Lichtenstein is involved in the provision of tax evasion services. Like every tax haven its sole purpose for existence is to undermine the regulation of other states, so I am hardly been contentious in saying that.
The the very next paragraph says:
The establishment of the Financial Market Authority (FMA) as the unified, independent regulator in January 2005 was a huge step for the financial services industry. This assessment has observed the substantial progress achieved in establishing a modern supervisory and regulatory regime. The FMA's ability to share information with domestic and foreign regulatory authorities works well in practice, and the capacity and willingness to cooperate has been demonstrated in the interactions by the FMA and other authorities with their foreign counterparts.
And yet we know that Lichtenstein is refusing to co-operate with other nation states. That was why Germany had to buy data.
The list of recommendations that the IMF makes is substantial and includes such basic items is making tax evasion and terrorist financing a crime. In the light of that the apparent warm words in the executive summary are a complete illusion which will however be reported in the press.
Like all tax havens Liechtenstein exists with the intention of assisting people to break the law in their own country. That is its business model. That is the trade that those who operate their assist. They are the suppliers of corruption services. It is time that the IMF spell this out in black and white.
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:
Let’s be honest. If someone Liechtenstein was good for skiing, you would disagree. Quite why that fact there are undeclared funds in Liechtenstein – although probably not as much as in the United States whom you never criticise of course – means that the financial services are not well regulated is a mystery to me. Regulation has nothing to do with undeclared funds or tax evasion. This saga proves actually that a well regulated jurisdiction like Liechtenstein has undeclared funds … surprise, surprise.
Phil
Your comment is quite simply absurd. the regulation to which you refer is designed to prevent money-laundering. the system cannot work in laundered funds are present in the system in significant amount.
Until your comments become credible I am giving you due notice that I will be blocking them because at present they are wasting my time and my readers time
Richard
Fine, reach for the censor’s airbrush. You can share your mad views with all the other people who are posting in reply (er none) in a sort of Tax Justice unreal Mugabe-esque world! If you cannot argue, then delete, delete, delete. Bye.
Phil
I allow comments on this site. I never set it up to encourage them. I believe that every blog writer has a duty to edit the postings on their site to ensure that they are both acceptable in law and are acceptable to their readers. it is not censorship to delete those that do not meet that standard: it is normal editorial duty.
With respect, your comment is some indication of your inability to argue your case and to comprehend the media with which you have engaged.
Abuse is always unbecoming of the abuser.
Richard