‘Tax dodge’ TV show condemned ¬ª Business ¬ª This Is Jersey.
The Jersey Evening Post has written:
DAMNING allegations on the BBC’s Panorama programme that a Jersey bank worker advocated dubious tax dodging have been dismissed as ‘sloppy journalism’.
Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf said that there were so many unanswered questions from last night’s prime time report that it was impossible to draw any firm conclusions from the programme.
This is ludicrous: he did so himself, saying:
However, he said that comments made by the Lloyds TSB Offshore worker, who was caught on secret camera explaining how to ‘get around’ EU tax rules, appeared highly inappropriate and were being investigated.
And he said that he would instruct the Jersey Financial Services Commission to use its own undercover customers to ensure that banks were operating within the rules.
So at the very least he thinks the BBC used a valid technique and found a real problem. So much for sloppy journalism.
And another Jersey official has chosen to comment inappropriately:
John Harris, the director general of the JFSC, said: ‘I do not think it was the BBC’s finest hour. I don’t think the programme was entirely right.’
He stressed that Jersey had very robust and comprehensive anti-money-laundering systems in place, as evidenced by the recent IMF report.
Two comments again. First, if the programme was not entirely right, why not? I have seen the whole transcript of this interview. It is right, let me assure you.
As for the IMF report - it is now shown to have been asking the wrong questions and thereby getting the wrong answers. That's the reality of the assessment programme. The BBC rumbled that in one simple exercise that has shown the truth about what happens in Jersey.
But as ever its politicians and officials exonerate abuse. This is unsurprising. The place is an secrecy jurisdiction after all: secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also 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.
If you can deliberately set out to create and support a secrecy jurisdiction you can easily gloss over a programme that shows the abuse you deliberately permit through creation of the veil of secrecy that only secret filming could crack.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Why on earth do these offshore financial authorities always fall back on the mantra that they don’t do money laundering when confronted with tax evasion allegations. In this event it wasn’t an allegation, it was a fact.
That’s like telling little Johny not to steal Sally’s sweets, and Johny replies but I’m not beating her up!
This proves it’s time implement a “Turks & Caicos” on the Channel Islands, throw these thieving bums into the sea and convert their banks buildings into subsidized tourist hotels and restaurants. The duped tax payers have already paid for their infrastructure many times over.
Those who condemn the programme know damn well that what was revealed is just the tip of the iceberg. These secrecy jurisdicitons have their own ingenious devices for carrying out jiggerypokery in cloaks of false respectability. The Americans denied they tortured people until their so-called humane techniques were exposed via Wikipedia as being clearly acts of crime. Its the same with any finance house that is party to tax evasion but dresses up what it does as legitimate banking practice.
The bank employee secretly filmed simply said with clear delight that there was ‘a way round it’. Getting onto the OECD white list is a good way to keep getting round it; an offshore centre can put on the OECD cloak of respectability whilst underneath nothing changes the nefarious way it does some of its business.
Poor Senator Ozouf never was that bright. I get the impression that he is merely the PR man for banks in Jersey, and the word is he is giving the orders to the Chief Minister.
He attempts to speak with great authority on finance, and how great it is, yet now he’s is talking of “unanswered questions”. So, does he know what is going on, or not?
If this is the tip of the iceberg, perhaps Panorama should have gathered some more video evidence, devoted their half hour programme to this and putting an end to the offshore industry once and for all. Why didn’t they?
John
Money
The BBC is not a bottomless pit
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Yeah but those islands are so small you could have arranged four or five meetings in a day on each island then resulting in so much evidence.
John
Which shows how little you understand about television filming and airing secret filming
Richard
So the JFSC accuse the BBC programme, broadcast at primetime on their flagship channel – home to Strictly Dogs Dancing – of “levity”.
Honestly, Orson Welles was looking for a gig.
[…] best reply to Jersey’s politicians concerning their feeble response to the Panorama on Lloyds is on the comments page of the Jersey Evening Post. It says: Frankly it […]
In all seriousness, regardless of the content of the programme, wasn’t it dumbed down?
I haven’t watched Panorama for about 20 years, but I found it utterly depressing that any documentary would choose to depict bankers as thieves pulling tights over their heads and sniffing money. It’s just lazy journalism.
Would the BBC show all trade union leaders as gruff northerners smoking ciggies with a mug of tea or a pint of bitter and reading the Daily Mirror? Or all teachers in badly knitted jumpers driving clapped out cars and eating veggie-burgers while reading LibDem pamphlets?
It was only when they cut to talking heads like Richard and Dave Hartnett that people came out with anything of substance, but even then, they were edited to simple soundbites and no contrary view was put. Do the BBC deem the British public so thick that they cannot listen to someone for more than a sentence and must be warned in advance of who the goodies are and who the baddies are?
The programme should have been twice as long and had a third of the subject matter – lending, bonuses and offshore could have each merited an hour. But I suppose as a public service broadcaster you wouldn’t want to cut into time reservd for Eastenders.
@Richard Murphy
I may not know much about television filming and airing secret filming but I would have thought that if there were systematic abuses that it would have been easy to have gotten much more proof than was on show.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the only evidence on show was all that could be obtained. Why wasn’t the film from inside Northern Rock shown?
John
Let me assure you both were filmed, no others were tried and due to time pressure only one was shown
Anything else you surmise is just your fantasy
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Why wasn’t the Northern Rock filming shown then?
As noted – time pressure in the programme
@Richard Murphy
It’s a shame they couldn’t have cut out some of the dumbed down bits (like the search for a banker in the pub) and shown the Northern Rock film.
This might be a first, but I agree
Hmm….let’s see.
There are around 80 banks in Jersey and Guernsey. Just 2 were visited and although both were filmed only 1 was shown. 1 or 2 out of 80 banks are being criticised. You say its 2 out of 2 which is 100%. It could well be 1 or 2 out of 80 which is 1.25% to 2.5%. I’m no mathematician but by no stretch of the imagination is that a reliable sample.
There are around 21,000 finance industry workers in the two islands combined. 1 or possibly 2 are under criticism by you. You claim that its “systematic”, but maybe 20,998 finance industry workers don’t agree with you.
Rupert
Stop making excuses
Answer:
1) why Lloyds created this
2) what it could do but help tax evasion
3) tell me how many others do similar things
Give me facts
Reference them
Richard
There is one thing that quite a few folk seem to have missed. The salesman at Lloyds gave the distinct impression that the Lloyds TSB High Income Fund was set up specifically to help avoid EUST but has anybody realised that the fund’s establishment on 1 July 1995 predates the EUSTD?
Richard
I wasn’t making excuses. I was passing a perfectly reasonable observation that it is inappropriate for you to make sweeping statements about the two islands’ based on such a tiny sample of just two institutions, and of just two individuals within those two institutions. I stand by that, and defy you to justify why such a small sample can be deemed indicative of the whole banking industries in either island.
In answer to your specific queries:
1) I don’t know and neither do you. But as John Buckles points out, the vehicle in question predates the EUSTD by around 8 years, so it very clearly was not set up with that in mind.
2) Aa above. Its clearly an investment vehicle which was set up to achieve investment objectives.
3) I don’t know and neither do you, although you clearly believe its widespread while I believe its not. However, I do have a genuine concern that several other clearing banks, especially in Jersey because of their sheer size, could be involved in similar practices. I don’t know this to be case, I must stress that, but I would not be surprised if it were the case. The clearing banks are the islands’ potential Achilles Heel.
But the payment mechanism through Hong Kong pre-dates the European Union Savings Tax Directive by 2 weeks
Please don’t say that is a coincidence
And that is the issue
Your answer to question 2 is a straightforward exercise in denying the truth – and you know it
You say you condemn tax evasion – but won’t do it when it stares you in the face
Richard
Richard
I don’t understand your last sentence. I do condemn tax evasion. And I’m not defending it here. That wasn’t my question. I was questioning the validity of your right to accuse Jersey and Guernsey of being systemically involved in tax evasion based on such a statistically small sample. I have no idea how you can draw that conclusion from that question. But then again, that’s your standard attack.
You have a totally misguided and warped view that everyone in the Channel Islands finance industry is engaged in nothing all day other than assisting clients to unlawfully evade tax. For those many of us who are as far away from that activity as it is possible to get, that is most offensive and highly inflammatory.
If you were to accuse me of being engaged in lawful tax avoidance of a non-extreme and not overly-aggressive nature then I would happily plead guilty of that non-offence.
Rupert
Answer my questions posed today then – and then see how you can’t agree with me
This man was a small part in a big machine that was assisting evasion
Try denying it
And I don’t care if you’re just aggressively avoiding – you can’t be sure where the line is and avoidance is anyway also now clearly unacceptable
So stop getting on your high horse – the world at large considers your behaviour utterly anti-social and indefensible
Richard
Richard
What questions ?
I don’t recall denying that “this man was a small part in a big machine [I assume you mean Lloyds, not Jersey] that was assisting evasion” ? When did I say that ?
And I’m not “just aggressively avoiding”. I actually claimed to be “engaged in lawful tax avoidance of a non-extreme and not overly-aggressive nature”. At the moment I do know where the line is. The anti-avoidance laws have NOT changed. If they have, then please point to the relevant statutory anti-avoidance instruments. I don’t recall anybody apart from you saying that “avoidance is anyway also now clearly unacceptable”. I only recall references by the Chancellor and by Gordon Brown to aggressive tax avoidance. You’ll no doubt be telling us next that claiming tax deductions for pension contributions is “clearly unacceptable”.
So “the world at large considers (my) behaviour utterly anti-social and indefensible” ? Really ? My behaviour is actually lawful, non-aggressive tax avoidance and I abhor and do not condone tax evasion. The world at large doesn’t like that behaviour ? What’s not to like, and anyway just who is “the world at large” ?
I don’t know what you are taking but I suggest you ease off on the dosage.
Rupert
The term aggressive tax avoidance entered the history book some time ago
As Stephen Timms has made clear all avoidance is now unacceptable
Tax compliance is acceptable. That includes pension relief. Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.
Using the above definition it is almost impossible to get anything offshore into the tax compliance box. Ergo, all you do is avoidance and unacceptable
As it is
Richard
Richard
Stephen Timms may well have said various things about tax avoidance. Likewise Dave Hartnett. But they are merely expressing their wishes. That does not yet constitute the law of the land unless the constitution of the UK has been changed without us noticing.