As he notes, not all is quite as some would like to suggest it is in these places:
[O]ffshore employees might be instructed by the management to "clean the records" and remove from the data base instructions such as:
‚Ä¢ Do not contact the Settlor in America!
‚Ä¢ Client is highly sensitive regarding telephone security and always confirm identity of Settlor before disclosing information;
‚Ä¢ The secret code is "Rainbow";
‚Ä¢ Use only his mobile number (xx xxx xxx xxx);
‚Ä¢ No communication with client on work address or email;
‚Ä¢ Change of trust name from "Sugar Spoon" to "Coffee Cup";
‚Ä¢ When making distribution to the Settlor do not say "Distribution" say donation;
‚Ä¢ This Trust has a "Dummy Settlor";
‚Ä¢ The trust should be treated for US tax purposes only as owned by another person;
‚Ä¢ And many more!
As a reasonable employee this gets you thinking, and I believe it is fair to say that all those remarks point in a direction where an ethical and moral person is in a conflict and has reasonable grounds to believe that the employer is not complying with the law.
However, what would you (and I mean you!) do when you are confronted with such a request from management?
I tell you! And I tell you straight: 99 % of all employees would do as instructed by the management. Why does this happen even though it goes against the employee's moral and ethical standards?
It is simple: any employee who speaks up faces instant job loss; and when employees go public and become whistleblowers they place their own (and their family's) future in serious jeopardy.
I believe Rudolf.
He worked for Swiss bank Julius Baer in Cayman.
But I accept: this is his word against most of the rest. Except there's another reason for believing him. It's called UBS.
When names like that are clearly corrupt why should we believe the stories that the rest offer in their defence?