Tax havens handle stolen property. This is not by accident, this is by design. The tale of the creation of Swiss banking secrecy says it all. As noted in a letter in the Financial Times today, Swiss secrecy laws date back to 1934. They were not created to protect German Jews and trade unionists from the Nazis as the Swiss like to claim.This is a big myth.
The reason bank secrecy was strengthened in 1934 was a scandal two years earlier, when the Basler Handelsbank was caught in flagrante by the French tax authorities facilitating tax evasion by members of French high society, among them two bishops, several generals, and the owners of Le Figaro and Le Matin newspapers.
Rather than risk their clients being found to be breaking the law again the Swiss introduced banking secrecy and the notorious numbered bank account system to ensure that customers of Swiss banks could evade their tax at will.
Tax evaded funds are money claimed by fraudulent means. they are stolen property. tax havens have, following in the wake of Switzerland, set out to handle that stolen property.
In March 2009 a Swiss banker quoted in the Financial Times said he believed that half of all funds deposited in that country would leave if bank secrecy was abolished — implying they must be tainted by tax evasion — and that the bankers know it.
The case is not isolated. Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and a number of British tax havens such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man all refuse to automatically exchange information on all interest paid on bank accounts held in their domain by people who live in other EU territories under the terms of the EU Savings Tax Directive. That Directive has only one stated purpose, which is to curtail tax evasion. These places deliberately subvert that purpose and in the process deliberately and knowingly facilitate tax evasion. As such they can all stand accused of deliberately handling stolen property, as can all other tax haven locations that refuse to even consider participating in this process.
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:
Are you suggesting that the Crown Dependencies are ignoring the EU Savings Tax Directive or something else? I have first hand knowledge that the EUSTD is being used in the Crown Dependencies and that clients who have refused to take part have been reported. I would expect that information to have been provided to the relevant EU state for further action.
Let me be candid Mr Buckles – I don’t really believe you.
Any more than I believe your name is John Buckles, if I’m honest.
The reason I don’t believe you is simple. If this happened in all cases without exception – and I think it should – then there would be no point left in the withholding option.
But the withholding option is being retained. So it can’t be happening, and no one fears it is happening because there is no evidence of it occurring.
So your argument does not stack
Richard
Richard
I have first hand experience that this is happening but it wouldn’t matter what I said, what proof I provided etc etc as this doesn’t help your point of view or argument.
You won’t accept it but tax is being retained, information is being exchanged and SARs are being made for those that do not want to comply. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Regards
John
John
Good heavens John – someone should teach you how to argue
I have presented a logical case. You have not sought to refute it. You have just said ‘told you so’. That’s not an argument. That’s a capitulation on your part.
If you want to prove your case destroy my argument or provide evidence.
Richard
Richard
Just because there might not be public information supporting what I have said, it doesn’t mean what I have said doesn’t take place.
You may have presented a logical theory but you too have not provided any facts with reference to the issues I have raised. Please prove to me and your readers proof that tax is not being retained by the Crown Dependencies, that information is not being exchanged between them and EU states and that SARs are not being done in respect of EU Savings Tax Directive obligations.
John
Richard
Following on from our exchanges, I have looked at three of the biggest offshore centres…Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. If you look at their respective FIUs they provide statistics of the SARs provided to them. The latest figures are for 2007 and there is clearly reporting being made to them.
As for tax collected and repatriated, well here’s the link confirming funds that have been collected and paid to the UK over the last few years taken from Tax Research http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/02/13/the-eu-savings-tax-directive-what-we-get-from-the-tax-havens/
So clearly, funds tax is being collected and paid…certainly to the UK…I would guess this the same for other countries too. SARs are clearly being made too.
My last point was about exchange of information, I’ve had a quick look around and can’t find anything so far but I think it would be fair to say that if the relevant offshore authorities were collecting tax on behalf of EU states and paying it to them, then they would almost certainly being exchanging information too.
Over to you to prove that SARs are not being done, tax is not being collected and exhange of information is not taking place.
John
John
I think I should quote what you say on a comment on another blog when you say:
Tax is not my area of expertise
And it shows.
You also very clearly have no clue about the issue about which you are arguing.
Of course tax is being deducted and paid. I know that. You’ve noticved I’ve written about it.
And as you should also have noted – I make clear that in my opinion without exception those opting for withholding will be tax evading in their home state – there is no other explanation
In 2007 45,000 people admitted this in 5 banks for the UK
They were the tip of an iceberg which when extended to other countries and all banks would suggest the number of suspicious transactiion reports in the Crown Dependencies should amount to several hundred thousand a year.
But that is not happening even though I’ll tell you – Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC, HBOS and RBS must know they’re being used for tax evasion. No responsible money laundering officer could think otherwise. It is not possible to believe otherwise.
So why aren’t they reporting everyone who refuses information exchange?
Tell me what’s wrong with my logic. But please make sure you know what you’re talking about or I’ll stop your posts on the basis that they waste my time and that of my readers
Richard
Well, its very interesting what people find out when they compare what actually happens onshore to what actually happens offshore: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13382279
The truth is, offshore is much, much cleaner than onshore. Which, funnily enough, has always been my experience: you try opening a bank account or establishing a company or trust in Jersey or Guernsey without proving your identity and you can verify this for yourself.
Paul
Your link does not work
Nor does your story
Form filling does not prove offshore is clean
It just proves it’s very good at admin
That’s quite different
Richard
Richard,
The Economist link is down at the moment, but look when it is back up.
The simple fact is that somebody can establish a company in Nevada, Delaware or London and open a bank account in any of those jurisdictions without even being asked the information that they would be asked to provide in the “offshore” jurisdictions.
The people who want real secrecy are onshore.
You can say offshore is better at admin and form filling, but if onshore doesn’t even require forms, what is your point? That offshore is only pretending to be respectable? But if onshore doesn’t even try to be respectable, isn’t that a better place to aim your criticism?
Richard,
The report I was referring to in the Economist is the one from Sharman you welcome on the current lead story.
[…] What tax havens do — 1 — they handle stolen property […]
[…] Part 1 […]