As the FT notes, follwoing my comments written last night before I saw the news:
Sir Allen Stanford, the billionaire Texan and cricket bankroller, was charged by US securities regulators on Tuesday over a "massive" investment fraud through his Antigua-based offshore bank.
The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Stanford International Bank, based in St John's, Antigua, and one of several companies run by Sir Allen, sold about $8bn in "certificates of deposits'', promising "improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates".
Rose Romero at the SEC's Fort Worth office called the alleged fraud one "of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world".
How much evidence do we need of offshore corruption before we close it down?
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:
Richard
I’m not even really sure that Antigua would be considered by many people to be a recognisd “offshore” jurisdiction. I suspect that Stanford Group accounts for around 99% of its financial services industry. Its almost like Stanford Group IS an offshore jurisdiction in itself, having “bought” the Antiguan government.
Richard
Stanford Group has been suggested by at least two sources in Washington as a funder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Do you know anything about this?
best wishes
John
John
Curious: no I don’t
And the Center for Freedom and Prosperity will not disclose who funds them (unlike TJN)
I think it entirely plausible though….
Richard
Richard, this is just corruption, and demonstrates no more than that the regulators don’t know what they are doing. Are you surprised?
Alastair
As is usual, you spectacularly miss the point.
In this case the point is the fact that Antigua was very obviously corrupt in its regulation
You are so blind because of your absolute devotion to far right dogma that tells you without any evidential support that anyone who works for a government is incompetent that you cannot consider the possibility that in places like Antigua the government has in fact been captured for private purposes by people like Stanford:
There is evidence that from 1999 onwards the US was aware that Antiguan regulation was designed to suit his purposes.
This is only a microcosm of what happens in other places. There can be no doubt that places like Jersey, Cayman and the British Virgin Islands have all, for example, passed trust laws to suit the purposes of local financial services operators without any, or at best for very little understanding of what they were actually doing. This is the corruption that takes place offshore. It has nothing to do with the incompetence of the regulator: it has everything to do with the fact that the regulators are in the pockets of those undertaking the corruption.
Richard
OK – what is the difference between corruption and legitimate sovereign interest? You might have a valid view but so might others, and who is to arbitrate as to who is right? The point is surely and simply that corruption is relatively simple to define, but attacking sovereign nations is only ever going to muddy the waters. Trying to make mud stick on politicians or governments is one of those pointless pursuits.
Alastair
So pursuing corruption is pointless?
That’s a great argument!
Richard
“it has everything to do with the fact that the regulators are in the pockets of those undertaking the corruption.”
Is just like the Finance Act 2008 still allowing non resident non doms to avoid tax? Why pick on the small nations, all nations do it.
You need more evidence.
You know you could say, Madoff and Sir Alan Stamford are both Americans, how much more evidence do we need that no Americans should be allowed in Finance?
Antigua in the offshore world is there with th Cook Islands and Vanatu.