The G20’s communiqu?© from its Pittsburgh summit on Friday said:
We ask the FATF to help detect and deter the proceeds of corruption by prioritizing work to strengthen standards on customer due diligence, beneficial ownership and transparency.” (Paragraph 42 of main text)
Sad that it had to say that: most secrecy jurisdictions claim they are perfect in this regard. The reality is that he money still flows far too easily. Anthea Lawson at Global Witness has said of this:
The G20’s call for a focus on corruption provides some of the necessary political will that has been lacking. Our investigations have shown that banks do not always take this seriously enough, and one reason is that they are not hearing a strong message from governments that they must do so. The taskforce meets in Paris next month; that meeting will be a decisive next step in this process, as it will now have to decide how to make the anti-money laundering laws more effective
State looting has a devastating effect on developing countries. Efforts to lift people out of poverty and lessen dependence on aid are undermined by banks’ keenness to do business with corrupt officials. Let’s be clear: corruption could not occur without the help of the international financial system - the amounts being stolen are too big to keep under the mattress.
Anthea knows this stuff better than most. I believe her.
But what worries me is that secrecy jurisdictions still brandish their IMF reports and say ‘we’re well regulated’. No, they’re not. they just have the right bits of paper in place. But that means nothing if they don’t enforce them, and I genuinely believe they do not. The G20 clearly shares that opinion. After all, if anti-money laundering procedures are not even done properly for corrupt politicioans, what hope for the ordinary person?
Except I know the answer to that. It was shown on panorama last week: banks just don’t care.
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:
Oh please – Panorama last week was one of the lowest ebbs of the BBC’s recent standard of journalism. Was that the best they could do? How many Banks did they target with the same sting? How many did they find dumb enough to say what was said? You are generalising based on insufficient evidence and personal bias.
I respect your principles and beliefs, but you really need to provide more cogent evidence than that.
Mark
The BBC did 2 banks – that’s all the budget and time allowed. And it found 2 glaring deficiencies
100% failure
You can claim what you like: the man on the Clapham omnibus knows you won’t tell the truth – after all; you come from a secrecy jurisdiction – and they’re built on the basis of a lie.
Richard
And if I only know one accountant and they went to prison for drink driving…does that mean that every accountant is a drunk driver?
It really is a pathetic remark, Mark.
With the first attempt, in a bank saved by the poor, the simple realities of de facto fraud available if you are considered ‘business’ by these institutions are immediately revealed. You see this in any sales. The salesman knows that everyone else will say the same thing, so he has to say it as flamboyantly as he can.
The message is the same.
I cannot tell you the number of times I am told of this 99.9% clean record that Jersey and Guernsey have.
No matter how many times I am rebutted and abused about having witnessed this language, the finance industry still denies it.
It’s how it all works. It has to be sold. This is the pure consequence of the insane ideology that tax can be used as a competition function.
Someone has to tell the punter how it works. It’s utter madness to think that this is not systemic.
The counter arguments are simple childishness, like a five year old reasoning because since they can’t have two biscuits then it is reasonable to ask for three. Intellectually feasible maybe but with no concept of cause/effect, so it should be the naughty step in reality.
If I had the same preconception as you are imagining the report had, then I could assert that all benefit claimants were scroungers.
I challenge you to pick the first long-term (just to give it some parameter of excuse to ask, as taxpayer owned banks were in this case) disability claimant and find out about their circumstance and be able to match the stereotype (not necessarily yours, but certainly of many who disagree with Richard Murphy as an opposite) with your findings.
The point is, that a claim that is so widely criticised as being the tiniest fraction of the total in debate, whatever it is, turns out to be corroborated at FIRST time of asking, and then matched in principle at the SECOND time of asking, then those supporting the argument have a justifiable right to ask the question about how minority the cases really are.
It fits the model.
Prove otherwise. Why should the people that are most seriously compromised by the greedy rich who have no conscience and who are unknown to them anyway have to pick up the tab? That probably makes me unreasonable.
Arnals
You’re right
I have eight and seven year old sons.
I am often tokld ‘it’s not fair’.
‘What’s not fair?’ I ask
‘That I was caught is the answer
Ditto Jersey and Guernsey
The likes of John Buckles peddle utterly fatuous statements and because they’re big fish in a very small pond think we should believe them
We don’t
Richard
@John Buckles
No, John, it doesn’t but if you had other reasons to believe that all accountants were drunks, and you had an interest in the matter, you might well reasonably expect the competent authorities to investigate the matter further.
Remember, John, that there are already pre-existing reasons to suspect that banks are assisting tax evasion. This BBC report is confirmatory, not the first grounds for suspicion.
Your example is, I am sorry to say, essentially, the purist sophistry.
Well said James
I can’t say I like being called a liar by someone who doesn’t know me and has no knowledge of me, my values or beliefs.
Am I correct in summarising your logic as “Jersey is a secrecy jurisdiction – I am from a secrecy jurisdiction (I’m not actually, but I’ve worked in one, so I guess I’m caught by your impeccable logic on that basis) – everything about secrecy jurisdictions is a lie – therefore I am a liar?
If you insist on tarring everyone with the same brush, you lose any credibility you might have had. Sorry Richard, but you go much too far.
The point I was making is that I suspect that the hapless Mr Jones was the only one we saw on film – did the makers of the programme try other banks and get a less juicy response? I don’t seek to defend Mr Jones, or his employers.
Regardless of this nonsense about the EU directive, he seemed to me to be more or less encouraging the client to evade tax – or turning a Nelsonian blind eye to it. Tax evasion is illegal – facilitating tax evasion is illegal – and rightly so. I for one would not be prepared to face loss of job, reputation and liberty to help someone commit a crime. I’m pretty sure I’m not in the minority, but I guess I already know you would disagree.
Can we please try and debate these issues without resorting to insults, generalisations and blanket accusations of dishonesty. If that’s not possible, then I’ll leave you to it, as your mind being so comprehensively made up on the matter, this forum is only going to be a place for everyone who agrees with every word you say to come and applaud
Mark
You over extrapolate: I said you had a credibility issue because secrecy jurisdictions are built on lies and you are defending them – but they are indefensible
For the record (again): the BBC went to 2 banks, both suggested evasion – one was shown. That’s the complete story. 100% recommendation – both obviously policy.
Now tell me it’s not systemic.
And why not talk dishonesty? The system in Jersey obviously is – even the denials are.
Richard