The Jersey Evening Post has reported this afternoon that:
JERSEY and other Crown Dependencies will not be required to make their company registers more transparent after a motion proposed by a Labour MP was withdrawn at the last minute. Rupa Huq MP, the Shadow Minister for the Home Office and Crime and Prevention had called for legislation to be drawn up which would require the UK Secretary of State to ensure that overseas territories and Crown Dependencies make central registers of beneficial ownership public.
However, she later withdrew her call for a clause to be inserted into proceeds of crime legislation after politicians heard that ‘in recent history' there had never been an example of imposing UK legislation on Crown Dependencies without their consent and were told that the territories were ‘well ahead of most jurisdictions'.
We know she does not really believe this. She reportedly said to the JEP 'That is quite scandalous' as if acting under pressure from law officers, which I think she was.
And I think those law officers are wrong. First, there has been legislation that has directly applied to these places e.g regulation on pirate radio broadcasting in the 60s. And there has been very direct requirement made of them to comply with law by the UK e.g., the European Union Savings Tax Directive. So bluntly, this is a scandal. It is the UK government happily providing a bolthole to those who do not want to comply with UK law by providing a loophole letting them do just that via the Crown Dependencies.
Not much has changed, after all.
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:
Not something you would necessarily have had access to through the online portal, the quotes from the Minister of State, Ben Wallace:
‘The Crown Dependencies .. are already taking a number of important steps on beneficial ownership and tax transparency which will put them well ahead of most jurisdictions. This includes some of our G20 partners and other major corporate and financial centres, including some states in the US. These measures will prevent criminals from hiding behind anonymous shell companies and mark a significant increase in the ability of UK law enforcement authorities to investigate bribery and corruption, money laundering and tax evasion’
‘The Minister added that by next year, the Crown Dependencies would have a direct central register or linked registers, which the UK law enforcement agencies will have automatic access to’.
As usual Richard, it’s time for you to speak truth to power.
This is transparency in secret
First, I don’t trust it
Second, transparency is not just for tax authorities. Secrecy also undermines markets. And that may be even more important. And all the while Jersey remains dedicated to secrecy corruption flourishes
The fact that others do worse is no excuse.
The legal position seems to be that where an offshore structure is used for illegal purposes, the necessary authorities will have access to the registers, but if no laws have been broken, then confidentiality will be maintained.
Is this also the UK position at present, and if so, what can be done so both onshore and offshore jurisdictions to circumvent the legal position ?
Can you clarify what you mean by your second paragraph? I am aware that you are are probably writing in a second language but I am not quite sure what you are asking
Sorry!
Actually this is my third language, so error can happen.
What I was asking was do the UK have similar arrangements to what the Crowm Dependencies have been allowed to continue ? Is there a public register with true public access, or is it just accessible by authorities where criminality has occurred ?
If the UK position is similar to the CD’s, then how do we circumvenbt the legal position to gain access to this vital information ?
Thanks
We now have a public register
It may not be of high quality but we do have one
I was not aware that the UK was so far advanced on this. So anyone can access the details of all directors and officers of a UK company ?
Yes
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/
It is perfectly normal practice to table an amendment in Committee, get a Ministerial response, and then withdraw it. This means that it, or something similar, can be brought back at Report Stage. By not pushing her amendment to a vote in Committee Rupa has actually ensured that it can get fuller discussion at later stages. A proper reading of the full transcript of the debate shows that she was pushing for transparency in both the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. She challenged the Minister’s comments about the Crown Dependencies in the Committee. She certainly didn’t back down.
Excellent!
That was how I read it
And Jersey has as a result misreported it
Richard
What would you expect from a self serving elite?
Nick
It’s impossible to exaggerate how corrupt and how complicit the Conservatives are in non-transparency.
11% of property in Westminster is held via BVI companies whose beneficial ownership is concealed. Taxes are avoided and games are played with freeholds to bypass rights of first refusal.
Former Chancellor Norman Lamont collects £1,000 a day advising one of the UK’s worst monetising freeholders, Vincent Tchenguiz. Samantha Cameron’s brother, a former Tchenguiz apprentice, runs a fund with £700m of Chinese money designed to earn supernormal profits from Tchenguiz-style exploitation of leaseholders. Call me Dave has spoken out against abuses but lobbied the EU against cracking down on them.
The hypocrisy and the scams just never end with the Conservatives.