The Caymanian Compass has published an article under the above title. It was written by Anthony Travers of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Authority, who says (shortened a little):

As those who reside and work in Cayman know, our nation has been at the centre of a recent debate regarding the financial practices of jurisdictions that are so—called tax havens.

One unfortunate outcome of this debate is that the reputation of the Cayman Islands is being deliberately tarnished by writers and politicians who continue to falsely refer to our nation as a tax haven.

As our laws and treaties make clear, the Cayman Islands are not a tax haven.

The Cayman Islands financial laws do not permit tax evasion.

In fact, our banking system operates under full transparency — we have comprehensive tax information agreements and treaties in place with both the US (Tax Information Exchange Agreement), the 27 European Union jurisdictions (the European Union Savings Directive) and 20 other jurisdictions pursuant to OECD form bilateral and unilateral tax information treaties that prevent tax evasion.

[R]ecent articles ‚Ķ have sought to adversely tarnish the reputation of the Cayman Islands . As I clearly describe above, nothing could further from the truth. 

The concept of truth would appear to be flexible.

Cayman is beyond doubt a secrecy jurisdiction. Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident  in their geographical domain that is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. They do in addition create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so. That is a remarkably good description of the ‘tax neutral’ (call it no tax in ordinary plain English) status of Cayman.

And this ‘totally transparent’ Cayman does of course have banking secrecy, no effective disclosure of any corporate information and a trusts regime, including STAR trusts that many outside Cayman think highly abusive, and not even trusts at all.

As for those Information Exchange Agreements, Mr Travers fails to note most relate to incredibly limited data for European Union Savings Tax Directive purposes alone and don’t qualify for OECD purposes.

So please Mr Travers, why not use international standards of truth, not just those generated in Cayman, because I do really find it very hard to recognise your version inherent in this article?