It’s been drawn to my attention that yesterday’s Guernsey Press included the following article:
CHRISTIAN Aid has apologised for pointing the finger at Guernsey during a campaign to expose countries accused of helping individuals and companies to dodge tax.
The charity launched its Big Tax Return campaign in 2008 to highlight the role of tax in developing countries.
It aimed to expose the way in which unscrupulous businesses looted the wealth of poor countries, but avoided paying taxes due to the country — and the Channel Islands were dragged into the debate.
‘Unfortunately when this campaign was launched the Channel Islands were caught in the middle, especially when the Tax Justice Network protesters reached Jersey,’ said Sarah Bough (pictured), secretary of the Guernsey branch of the charity.
The hint to the reality of what is going on is in the picture accompanying the article — which is of the local Christian Aid branch secretary. It appears that it is they say who are offering the apology.
Well, I can be emphatic. They are wrong to do so. First of all, my work has shown Guernsey to be one of the most widely recognised tax havens in the world. This is shown in my literature review on this issue which reviewed tax haven lists over a period of more than thirty years — to find Guernsey on them all. Admittedly it scraped off the OECD 2009 listing but given that a commitment to sign just twelve Tax Information Exchange Agreements was the sole commitment needed to get off the list — and Guernsey met this absurdly low standard days before the list was published — that was hardly an objective test.
Second, the evidence published on the secrecy jurisdictions web site published by the Tax Justice Network shows this to be the case. Guernsey got an opacity ranking of 79 out of 100, which placed it at 49th on the global list of tax havens.
When however this data was ranked by financial flows for the joint Tax Justice Network and Christian Aid Financial Secrecy Index then Guernsey was ranked 13th out of 60 secrecy jurisdictions.
In that case whatever the local branch of Christian Aid says, and however local journalists might like to spin things, Christian Aid reports and the Tax Justice Network confirms they still very firmly think Guernsey is a tax haven and secrecy jurisdiction. By all objective measures Guernsey remains as unacceptable as ever. Please don’t doubt it.
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:
Or perhaps Christian Aid locally have done their research and realised that what the propaganda that they were previously being fed was totally inaccurate ?
In any event it was a major own goal as it would have closed off the finance industry in Guernsey as a vital and major previous source of raising revenue for the charity in Guernsey.
@Rupert
Or maybe, as seems likely, the local press sought to drive a wedge into the situation
As for funding – CA’s business is not mine – but I don’t take tainted money
Rupert
As Christian Aid is at the forefront for campaigning against ‘tax havens’, don’t you think that such a retraction and apology to Guernsey should be seized upon by Guernsey Finance to promote the industry? If there is a written statement backing up the headline’s claim, it would be marketing gold, surely? It would denounce the very basis of the ongoing academic research in the tax abuse field and buy any wavering doubters for ever.
It is a PR opportunity too good to be missed.
Otherwise it is questionable that the local branch really has its heart in the wider goals of this charity. Which would be a shame.
Christian Aid Head Office need to present a statement either way. It would be unethical if they said one thing and believed another.
Which is why I cannot believe this article.
Richard
You’ve been reading too many conspiracy theory novels.
The chances of Christian Aid in Guernsey handling tainted money by accepting money from Guernsey financial institutions is about as great as your chances of being knighted for services to the financial services industry under a Tory government.
Rupert
A few weeks ago a succesful Guernsey branch of a multinat was in the local paper for donating a few grand to ActionAid. Photo and all. Yet this bank fought for, and won, many hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of liquiditable deposits, a couple of years back, from an African national resource company with a whole bunch of unethical deals behind it. Of course the deal was channeled through a Geneva company via a Jersey subsidiary.
Do you think the local charity has any idea?
Bless those banks. So wholesome.
Arnald
How much of that multinational’s money had anything to do with the Guernsey branch’s activities?
Rupert
I could tell you the details. I won’t.
A Guernsey registered reputable operation was booking ‘several hundred million’ (to put it politely) of money derived directly from a company that controls the the vast majority of natural resources from a country that is rightly deemed as ‘poor’.
You tell me if that the entries I raised and the questions I asked and the eyebrows that were raised don’t point to an absolute rubbishing of your sort of apologistic denialism.
I’ve kept quiet in Guernsey due to the unworthy flak I get from bigots who are clueless, but the this apparent outing of a decent charity as saying that Guernsey is exempt from criticism is beyond the pale.
You know nothing about reality.
Put it this way. I asked where the money came from. They said Switzerland. That’s how good Guernsey is.
@Arnald
I don;t think for one minute that Christian Aid will be exempting Guernsey from criticism in the future, whatever the local branch and a local journalist might say
Anyone who thinks they’ve got Guernsey off the hook because a local CA member says all is OK is seriously mistaken, I think
This happened in jersey remember a while ago. Frightened local people seek to placate their employers. Those outside remain objective.
Arnald
I don’t see how you can make a very serious allegation like that and then fail to provide evidence to back it up. Sorry – I need more evidence than that if your claim is to have any credibility. Otherwise its a very easy thing for anybody to allege without any foundation. If you know about it through reasons of your employment, then I’m sure already filed an STR and so shouldn’t be talking about it all as its subjudicy. If you know about through other sources then you’ve got no reason to provide your evidence. If indeed there is substance to your allegation.
Time to put up or shut up.
I don’t think people in Guernsey are bigoted against you. They just know that you see things that don’t exist. Seems to me like the perfect time for you to prove to everyone that you were right all along, don’t you think ? Maybe the alleged “bigotry” might erode and you might be taken more seriously.
Rupert
Too trite by far
The whole of Guernsey is designed to create secrecy and fear and then you say lack of evidence is absence of proof that the place may be used for corruption
Your gall is astonishing
Ever heard of the three monkeys?
Richard
Richard
That old chestnut…you can’t look under the bonnet to see what’s there so we must all be corrupt. That’s the entire foundation of your constant attack on the Channel Islands.
Of course Guernsey MAY be used for corruption. Every jurisdiction in the world COULD be used for corruption. It doesn’t mean that it is, does it ? Its not possible to prove a negative, as you well know, but that’s your constant tactic.
Arnald has made a very serious allegation. Interestingly, he has not made the same allegation on the Guernsey Press online forum. I wonder why not. If its true, what has he got to hide ? If he can’t substantiate it, then he shouldn’t say it at all, instead of trying to blacken Guerrnsey’s name internationally without evidence. If he can, then fair play to him.
@Rupert
Rupert
I can state categorically:
a) Guernsey is used for tax evasion
b) Guernsey is used for unacceptable tax avoidance
c) Guernsey is used to undermine the tax systems of other states
d) Guernsey has been sued for corrupt purposes and nothing has changed to prevent that happening now because it still promotes the secrecy that allows this
e) Guernsey is 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 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.
f) Corruption is therefore at the core of Guernsey’s business model
g) This is deliberately the case
You cannot argue to the contrary
I am right
Richard
Richard
a) Is it ? To what extent ? Facts and figures please to support your evidence.
b) “Unacceptable” is your subjective opinion. An opinion is not fact.
c) Is it ? What evidence do you have ?
d) I’m sure it has been in the past. Is it now ? How do you know ? Where’s your evidence that it is the case today ?
e) That’s your definition. Just because something could be doesn’t mean that it is.
f) You are only drawing that conclusion based on (a) to (e). A totally flawed and insufficient case.
g) Really ? On what basis do you draw that conclusion ?
I can indeed argue to the contrary and have just done so.
You are not right, and your methodology for your conclusion is as flawed as ever.
Your perception of what goes on here is totally false. You are at least 10 years behind the reality.
Rupert
That’s not an argument
You have no facts to support your case at all – the facts are not available
The only facts support my case
In which case there is no counter argument
You haven’t even tried rhetoric
Hopeless
And straightforward denial behind the deliberate veil of secrecy you create – as ever
Unless you can reveal facts don’t bother to reply
Richard
You obviously won’t print this but you accuse me of not having facts to back up my defence. But you are the one who made the attack on your posting #13, for which you simply have no facts to back up what you allege !
So let’s get this straight – you are permitted to make allegations without evidence, but if anybody tries to counter your allegations you demand evidence ! What sort of a system is that ? In the real world I think that’s referred to as a “kangaroo court”.
@Rupert
Oh for heaven’s sake – stop being stupid
10s of thousands of confessed tax evaders on amnesties
Half all accounts not exchanging information with their tax authorities
Innumerable corruption trials proving the point
Have you not noticed any of them?
And if not – how can I have any confidence that you have any ability at all to a) KYC b) spot money laundering c) process data d) not turn a blind eye – as you very clearly have one
So very Channel Ilsands I might say
Richard
Re.amnesties – who was doing the tax evading ? Whose responsibility was it to complete their tax returns correctly. Guernsey’s ? No !
Have I missed something ? When was automatic exchange of information signed up to ? There was me thinking that the EU offered a withholding tax option which they found acceptable.
I must have also missed the corruption trials. When were they ? When were the offences committed and by whom ? Were they since the AML regulations were brought in ? How many of them came about because Guernsey financial institutions actually blew the whistle on their clients ?
And no, I don’t have a blind eye at all. I see what’s there. Maybe in your world things are different but its not actually possible to see spmething which isn’t there.
Your last comment says it all. You have a biased, blinkered view of the Channel Islands which people like me feel obliged to counter. Your views are 10 years out of date. You clearly watched too much Bergerac.
Try looking at Guernsey as it is today – 2010. You won’t recognise it from the perception that you have formed of it.
‘Rupert’
You don’t “see what’s there”. You see what you want to see.
Your counter arguments, like so many I encounter on a daily basis, are based utter contempt for wider society. I suggest you crawl back under the stone on the rock and let intelligence take its course.
Will you campaign for the exclusion of Sovereign Debt vulture funds from Guernsey’s ‘portfolio’?
You have zero credibility. As for cricket….
Forgive me for being a bit thick,but why would anyone want to invest in Guernsey with its very low interest rates offered, when they can invest their money in EU and get a higher return?
@Rupert
I don’t do fiction
I’ve heard of Bergerac
And have never seen it
I deal in facts
That’s good to know, you clearly are well informed on this subject. So how about providing the facts Rupert asked for then?
@JohnBuckles
10,000 or so tax amnesty confessions
Not a single set of company accounts on public record
About 50% of all account holders not declaring their income to their domestic tax authorities – with Guernsey deliberately helping them evade
Banks that help evasion – I draw attention to Northern Rock in Panorama last year
My case is completely solid
Prove I’m wrong
Richard
If that’s the extent of your “evidence” then you might as well give up. And by the way, in the western world the norm is innocent until proven guilty so you as the accuser have to prove your case, rather than the “accused” having to prove a negative, which as we all know is impossible.
But in answer to your four points:
1. That’s historic. Prove that its still going on. You yourself have highlighted a reduction in bank deposit levels. Has it occurred to you that tax evaders have been driven out of Guernsey?
2. Only you are campaigning for accounts to be filed publicly. And you don’t need to know such information as private investment companies are not seeking to attract trade or investment from you.
3. What a bizarre statistic. How can you come up with such a figure when you don’t even know how many bank accounts exist?
4. I think you need to watch that Panorama documentary again. It proved nothing of the sort against Northern Rock in Guernsey. It barely mentioned them and said nothing which could possibly draw that conclusion. You are clearly getting confused with what was said about Lloyds Bank Jersey.
Hardly enough “evidence” to prove your “case” is it?
@Rupert
1. Nonsense – we know that withholding is carrying on. The data is published
2. Nonsense – this is becoming one of the BIG economic issues
3. Published data – don’t you know what Guernsey Finance says?
4. I know what was said – I advised the programme
Hard evidence
Case over
Don’t bother to comment again – you just prove you turn a continual blind eye to abuse
“Rupert”
Your arguments are just total obfuscation. If there is an availability to shirk social obligation, the rich will take it.
It does not apply to anyone else.
Blind, uneducated nonsense yet again. I don’t why you bother. Just state your claim as an appeaser to inequality and we all know where you stand.
Richard
1. “We know that withholding is carrying on. The data is published.” Published where? Please provide evidence.
2. Really? That’s merely your opinion, not fact.
3. I have hunted for and have not located any such data published by Guernsey Finance. They publish the total value of bank deposits in Guernsey banks, but not the total number of bank accounts. Please elaborate.
4. I have re-watched that programme again. I know exactly what was broadcast. I don’t care whether you advised the programme or not. If you did then you too know exactly what was broadcast. The Northern Rock banker stated very clearly that the customer should inform the Inland Revenue, which is entirely correct.
Rupert
Guernsey Finance have published data on the number of accounts with tax withholding – as have Jersey
Just under 50% now in Jersey – from recollection
I recall a similar figure for Guernsey
Re Northern Rock – they said get a company – a non trading company specifically – to hold the account and no withholding would be required and no reporting would be made. If that is not advising how to tax evade, what is?
As Arnald would have it – stop defending abuse
Richard
Richard
Guernsey Finance may well have published (now historic) data on the number of accounts with tax withholding, but its simply not possible to state this as a percentage of the total number of accounts in existence in Guernsey as the latter figure is neither known or published. 50% of what total figure?
Re. Northern Rock – the banker did indeed state that no withholding would be required and no reporting would be made by the bank. That’s because no reporting is required to be made in respect of a corporate account under the express provisions of the EUSTD and if the bank was to report it then it would be in clear breach of its confidentiality obligations owed to its customer by making an unnecessary disclosure. You conveniently overlook the very clear statement that the banker made to the reporter, quite correctly and responsibly, that the customer himself should report the interest income to be earned by the non-trading company to HMRC. What was said by the banker was 100% correct, and was most certainly not advising how to tax evade. (Unlike the Lloyds Bank Jersey banker whose approach was very different). It was an accurate statement of how to legally avoid the withholding tax being deducted at source automatically, in full accordance with the EUSTD which does not apply to corporate accounts, resulting in totally legitimate tax deferral. If the customer did exactly as the bank advised, then the full amount of tax due would end up being paid by the customer who would have benefited legitimately from the compound roll-up of the interest earned until the tax liability became due. This is precisely what the UK tax law and the EUSTD permit. For example, if interest is typically paid by a bank quarterly on 30th June 2010, 30th September 2010, 31st December 2010 and 31st March 2011, then under the EUSTD the customer can either suffer the deduction of withholding tax at source as it is earned, or, by investing via a company, he can declare it on his tax return for the year ended 5th April 2011 and pay the tax due by 31st January 2012. Please confirm which tax laws would have been broken there.
I am not “defending abuse” – this is the exact effect of the tax legislation. I have said it before several times on this blog and I will say it once again – I abhor tax evasion and I don’t think the Crown Dependencies got it right when they took the withholding tax option under the EUSTD. But the law is what it is and it is there to be complied with. I disagree with you totally regarding tax avoidance because it is not illegal and I don’t consider it to be wrong – that’s a difference of opinion on morals and social beliefs. But how can complying with what the tax law actually provides possibly be “abuse”?
Come on Rupert
Show us your evidence that Guernsey is not part of a system that is ruining global development.
As you say so often:
Put up or shut up.
As for your laughable attacks on me on the local blog, I can assure you that I know what I have seen, I know I couldn’t report it to the FIS because the system is rotten. I did raise my concerns with management. A few months later I was offered a way out of the industry.
As it happens, I know I know more than you on various positions. That’s why I laugh at your defence of the indefensible.
Why would I submit myself to constant abuse if I wasn’t so sure of myself?
That is why you are naive. Not a good quality for a practioner of ‘wealth management’. What would your clients think if they knew you were bested by a pleb like me, huh?
Richard
Rupert is not defending abuse he is asking for evidence/ links to the data you are quoting to support your claims. Shouldn’t be too hard now would it? To indulge him? Because someone of your talent wouldn’t mislead now would you?
John
@JohnBuckles
The data is on public record
I repeat:
– No accounts on public record
– Denial of information exchange to facilitate tax evasion – used by about half of all account holders
– No data on trusts
– Time after time corruption leading to Guernsey
– 10s of thousands of confessed tax evaders
And still you deny it
I think Arnald has you well and truly sussed
So have the rest of the world
Richard
Rupert
What it entails is that the advice given implies that if the client don’t fulfil their tax duty then the service provided won’t bat an eyelid.
Is that not correct?
Is that responsible?
And how does that work when the complex use of Guernsey’s lauded ‘top of the tree’ cell industry that deliberately promotes that obfuscation, blurring beneficiaries and ownerships and the responsibilities for disclosure, let alone all the stuff you sell to sociopaths, in the real world?
I notice you took my advice on your use of punctuation.
You make me laugh.
Arnald #30
How can anybody “prove that Guernsey is not part of a system that is ruining global development” ? It is you that is alleging that it is. Its up to you prove that it is, not for others to prove that it isn’t. Proving a negative is impossible.
You must be mixing me up with somebody else. I haven’t attacked you on any local blog although I note that 3 or 4 people on it seem to be constantly attacking you. You seem to be getting paranoid.
That’s a remarkable admission that you make. Failing to report your suspicions to the FIS is a criminal offence. I trust that you have taken appropriate legal advice to protect your position. On the face of it you are as much of a criminal as the people who you claim not to have reported. That causes me to be incredibly cynical about what you say and about your motives. I’m afraid that it just doesn’t stack up at all.
For all your bluster, one thing seems to be totally lacking from you – evidence!
Richard #32
The data to which John Buckles and I refer does not appear to be on public record and, rarely for you, you do not appear able to point to it. Why is that? Its rather a large flaw in your argument.
Arnald #33
Don’t be ridiculous. It implies no such thing at all. It actually states (not implies) that the accountholder should report the income to HMRC. Absolutely black and white and its absurd that you can imply anything else from the facts of what was actually said. Or are you trying to claim that the Northern Rock banker was talking in some form of secret code? You really are quite remarkable in trying to claim that what was said actually meant something else altogether. Your paranoia seems to be have become all-consuming.
I don’t even understand the second half of your post. You will need to elaborate.
“Rupert”
I am bound by legal contract not to be specific. It’s what happens when you sign compromise agreements. I can’t give you the proof that would shut your argument up forever because I would be sued. The facts are all there, you refuse absolutely to trust anyone but a small coterie of businessmen, whilst accepting cash from sources that you cannot possibly know the original provenance, nor indeed its future beneficiary.
Otherwise the the ‘legal’ things I’ve seen should not have been touched with a bargepole. Guernsey’s drive into China and India, and feeding off the debt in Dubai or whatever it is you do that means you have to go there so often, is a clear example of backward thinking. We wish to pursue the last vestiges of dirt for the next few years to maximise profits for a few hundred people.
As for the cause of this thread:
I have an email from a senior member of Christian Aid that states the article released in the Guernsey Press is a ‘misunderstanding’. Which means it’s wrong. There is no apology for Guernsey being a stinking tax haven that facilitates crime and hinders the development of all the countries that transact through it.
It is merely apologising for catching the Guernsey branch by surprise with its campaign launch.
As for the local blog, why pretend Rupert? Anyway, some guy called David has linked this site in to the sister thread on thisisguernsey, and I imagine Richard Murphy will get a few more reads, especially from those looking for a way to openly criticise him for his detailed research. Good luck.
For the record, Richard Murphy, you were getting a mouthful from some of the ignorami on there.
@Arnald
I’m used to crap being thrown in my direction
Candidly – it’s a sign of success! If no one noticed I’d have wasted my time. The fact is Tax Justice Network has radically impacted on the world
Best
Richard
Ha ha
I’m glad I got the comment in on the local that the bile against me was a sign of success before this comment!
It’s so sad to see ‘successful’ people being duped by false idols.
It reflects the decades of corruption on ethical values due to chasing meaningless goals.
People are quite willing to force themselves through physical pain in the gym to purge their greedy intake, but apply that to any psychology and they denounce those analysts as the devil.
Pathetically short sighted, and it won’t be them that suffers. It will be the innocent.
It’s like the middle ages.
I’m waiting for all those that hammer me on the Guernsey blog to add some debate.
Christian Aid DO NOT support the OFC based in Guernsey. It is a secrecy jurisdiction as defined by Richard Murphy, and taken up by international political orgainsations, indeed, by politicians.
If you want an argument, bring it here, and let’s see how long you last under crushing logic.
Oh.
The successful Investec brand; who had wonderful contacts (accordinng to the internet) are laying off their staff and closing their trust operation. I’m wondering why. If they have sold the business, how solid is it? Or is it not possible within the incoming regs?
Where are my spies to tell me the answers?
That’s a massive blow to Guernsey. It’s sad, but I know folk are moving to ethical funds and the like, using their skill to be pro-actively more ethical.
Well done Guernsey. The regulations encouraged by campaigning groups are having an effect.
Look up Investec and see their history. On a plate.
They will say otherwise. I will say otherwise.