I have already written today on the subject of the government's proposals to create a register of the beneficial ownership of companies, something I have long campaigned for. It would, if done properly, beat con men who trade without sufficient resources, crime laundered through UK companies and a great deal of tax evasion.
What I am quite sure of is that this new law is not being done properly. In fact, it is little better than an honest box arrangement that has no chance of achieving its objectives, and now we know why. As the Guardian reports this morning:
[B]usiness interests including the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Law Society have mounted a rearguard action to kill off the plan, saying unilateral action would leave British firms at a competitive disadvantage.
For example:
The CBI had told the business department it would prefer a multilateral but private register. It had also warned of "foreseeable concerns around the security and use of publicly available data, such as the 'profiling' of individuals based on their company holdings or the targeting of individuals with holdings in certain companies."
Whilst:
The accountants Deloitte said a public register would discourage foreign investors in UK property and "over-expose the financial position of potentially vulnerable individuals such as children who are the beneficiaries of trusts, or indeed any beneficial owner who has valid reasons to want to protect their privacy".
This is straightforward baloney. (I am trying to be kind here). To suggest that children will be at risk because they have property in trust is absurd: the fact that they have property is always widely advertised by things like living in large houses, going to very expensive schools and their parents' conspicuous consumption on things like cars. And then there's always the media. So Deloittes are simply being disingenuous.
As for the CBI, this is equally hypocritical. Have I heard such howls of protest from them about the sale of tax data to private companies? Oddly, no. And what, may I ask, is wrong with holding people to account for their decisions?
Now I am not accusing Deloitte, the CBI or the Law Society of being on the side of criminals, fraudsters and tax evaders. But just as is the case with their support for offshore secrecy their opposition to any element of transparency always happens to coincide their interests with those of such groups.
I know that what the CBI, Law Society and Deloitte all want is the opportunity to accumulate wealth unaccountably behind as many veils of secrecy as can be put in the path if those seeking to know what they are doing but that, of course, is exactly what the fraudsters, criminal and tax evader wants as well.
These 'pillars of society' should really think a little harder. Through their desire to promote their own selfishness (there is no other word for it) they seek to undermine the society that gives them their wealth. By wanting to destroy transparency and accountability they threaten democracy, which has been the bedrock of wealth.
They really are very foolish at best.
Or they could be very much worse than that.
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:
This is another incremental push towards social unrest as the wealth syphoning continues-it is unbelievably stupid and irresponsible!
I think you are on a losing battle here, it aint ever going to happen.
I think the more practical step is for HMRC to have, a fully enforced,
register of beneficial interest.That would satisfy the desire for privacy, yes, there
really are some good reasons for such, but the purpose would be to achieve the prime objective which is to raise a fair and just amount of taxation,not a publicity tool for a supposed redistribution of wealth.
You completely miss the point: limited liability is a privilege granted by society that permits those individuals who use it to avoid the consequences of their actions in some circumstances. It’s absolutely, therefore, fundamentals of those seeking to take advantage must be held accountable for their use of the companies that they create are nothing less than a full register the beneficial ownership can achieve that.
Yes, but it is never going to happen. And it is is going to be opaque in any case.
For example you put down a spouse or a family member instead of your own name.
Or you hide the beneficial ownership through a web of companies or individuals in another country. These are just two off the top of my head, I have not put my mind to any more scams yet.
Then you’re saying law breaking is endemic
Interesting
Law breaking is endemic.
Take one law, which I feel is important. Driving without ones phone. Now stand by any road and watch people driving with their phone on their ear.
I agree we need to make sure people are paying their tax. That is another part of society which in the end is very important. I am sure 99% of business people who start companies in the UK feel the same way. That’s why they choose the UK over Greece and other potential countries.
However we need to protect the innocent people. The children of the owners to stop them becoming a target of kidnap or something worse.
I have already dealt with your last point
It is quite absurd unless you also say they must live in a three bedroom semi with 2oo4 ford fiesta and a £10 phone as well
I do sympathise with your point Richard but reading recently about how numbers of people whose details were already available on Companies House registries found those details had been fraudulently used to open false accounts with online retailers means I am against this idea notwithstanding its merits.
Sorry – but ukU might as well say you are opposed to the Register of births or the phone book on this basis
How quaint – haven’t used a phone book in a decade. But last time I was staying near a landline I recall endless calls from PPI and other scam callers who no doubt obtained my number from the aforementioned Phone Book.
There’s a bit more information at stake then a phone book as you know.
So to save a phone call you want unaccountable capitalism that facilitates crime and tax evasion
Wealthy people have things hidden for their safety. You cant find the purchases of the properties by the Middleton family or Beckhams online. This is for them and their families security.
This is another absurd comment.
You may have noticed that the Middleton’s and Beckham’s all participate in conspicuous consumption. Hiding their name and address on the Register Of Companies does nothing to avoid the fact that their wealth is displayed for all to see, often
Politely, stop talking nonsense