The FT notes this morning that:
High levels of privacy have been a significant draw, said Simon Airey, partner at Hastings, a law firm. “Plenty of people live in countries where they are subject to blackmail, extortion and kidnap risk,” he added. “Some people legitimately don't want their finances public.”
I get bored by hearing this nonsense. There is not the slightest evidence that anyone has ever been subject to kidnap, extortion or any other crime after criminals spent hours pouring over company records.
Let me be clear: I am not saying that people do not live without the fear of these crimes. I know they do. But how will the victims be identified? I suggest that lifestyles of conspicuous consumption might be the best indicators to criminals of their potential victims.
Again, don't get me wrong. I am not saying anyone should be a victim of crime because they conspicuously consume. That is utterly unacceptable.
All I am saying is that to suggest that offshore secrecy prevents crime of this sort is absurd. It simply does not. It does nothing of the sort. And I am bored by the apologists for offshore tax havens making these wild and wholly unjustified claims aimed at base human emotions, like fear, that have no credibility at all. Those of us opposing tax haven secrecy are not siding with criminals. We're opposing a system widely abused by criminals. And I think those making these ridiculous excuses know that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
“Exposing offshore secrets will not result in a spate of kidnappings”
Which is arguably disappointing on one level but undoubtedly true nonetheless.
And just why would no kidnapping be disappointing to either the victim or their families. A particularly crass comment it would seem to most decent thinking people. Each to his own I suppose.
I think you have somewhat misread
But that seems to be the way of the Crown Dependencies
Michael says:
“And just why would no kidnapping be disappointing…..”
One thing that wealthy people choose to forget is that without the rule of law, most of which was designed to protect the interests of people with property and wealth, those people would spend enormous amounts of money on private security which would almost certainly be far more expensive than the state provision which they decline to pay for through due taxation.
Even persons of high social rank travelled and lived in fear in Tudor times and arguably, throughout most of human history.
The so-called free market cannot hope to exist without public sector, government infrastructure. It costs. Those with most skin in the game should be prepared to contribute accordingly.
The default currency of free markets is violence.
Violence is inimical to civilised society. Join the dots.
Can I ask why you think that it is wrong for people not to have privacy? There are many reasons why people would not want their personal details publicly available, not just because of kidnapping etc. Isn’t it a basic human right?
I have no problem with privacy for individuals
Corporations are not individuals. They have limited liability – a massive privilege and disclosure is the price of that
Corporations are not people
Please do not make category errors
And no one anywhere has to use limited liability – anyone can have privacy by not doing so
OK, corporations aren’t people, but they are owned by people. Through public registers of ownership those owners can be targeted by more unscrupulous types, including tax justice campaigners making unfounded allegations of wrongdoing where one exist, just because the compnay is in a tax haven.
I notice though that Tax Research Uk is an LLP. Limited Liability Partnership. If you are using limited liability (which you are), surely you should stand by your word and be willing to disclose?
Yet I see that you have anonymous donors to Tax Research LLP.
Are you saying that it is OK for you to claim privacy for you or your donor but other people not to do so?
Is it OK for you to do this, yet then claim it is wrong for others to
Hang on….
I do not have to disclose my P & L account, but I do
And I most certainly do not need to disclose my funders, but I do
Barring a special case where I protected a trustee who felt vulnerable for good reason
I have gone far beyond all disclosure requirements in all cases
Don’t play silly with me for doing so
“Barring a special case where I……”
This is rather the point though isn’t it. You are arguing for for FULL disclose for company ownership. At the very same time you are NOT disclosing your anonymous donor.
It is double standards.
You claim your donor felt vulnerable, but we only have your word to take for it. In other situations the reasons for you not disclosing could be more nefarious or you simply don’t want us to know who is giving you the money because it could be embarrassing for you.
To compare, consider a company owner who could feel vulnerable if their details are made public – for whatever reason. Maybe their families might feel threatened, or they would be vulnerable to shakedowns by criminal elements, or maybe they simply value their privacy as much as your anonymous donor does.
Why is one any different from the other, other than you say it is and one happens to suit you and one targets people you dislike?
Are you saying it is OK for you to do it, but there are no reasons for somebody else to value their privacy?
If you are, you are claiming that you have a higher moral authority to be the arbiter. Or you are simply a hypocrite.
If you are true to the arguments for transparency your are forcing on others, you should either disclose who your donor is or give the donation back.
But as I have just explained, I was making a wholly voluntary disclosure not required by law anywhere on earth of my income – barring one case
You on the other hand want no disclosure of those granted a massive benefit from society
There is literally no comparison: I chose to talk about something, barring a case where I felt it better not to do so.
The other is about the disclosure of those being given a massive benefit by society.
If you cannot see the difference I’d politely suggest you haven’t got the intelligence to debate here.
Thanks Richard,
I am a part owner of various companies, some based for investment reasons in tax havens.
My companies are not going to publicly disclose their ownership and will legally challenge any attempts to force us to do so.
Now though we have a great argument for the reason – we feel vulnerable.
If it’s good enough for tax campaigners to claim their anonymous donors feel “vulnerable”, with no further explanation and no recourse for other parties to check them, then it’s good enough for us company owners too.
Interesting
Your challenge will, of course, disclose the data
But feel free to challenge statute law. I wish you luck with that. You must have a lot of money to waste
And a generic claim that you feel vulnerable is not a specific scenario, the detail of which I have disclosed
There are opt outs in UK law for disclosure in specific cases of vulnerability that may be extended offshore
But being the owner of a company is not a special case
Robbie says “[i]OK, corporations aren’t people, but they are owned by people. Through public registers of ownership those owners can be targeted by more unscrupulous types, including tax justice campaigners making unfounded allegations of wrongdoing where one exist, just because the compnay is in a tax haven.[/i]”
Oh my word… Let me get this right. Your objection to having companies beneficial owners disclosed to the public is that they can be “targetted” by people campaigning for justice? In other words, it’s not fair that people can be held to account for their actions? Really? REALLY??
Give me one good reason – just ONE good reason – why a company should be based in a tax haven unless it’s to avoid paying tax… which most people believe is “wrongdoing”.
I try to be polite to posters on this site. This has been one of the hardest few moments of my life. The views you express make me sick to my stomach.
I find it quite bizarre that people are intimidated by me when all I am asking them to do is 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.
No, Richard, you haven’t disclosed the reasons why your donor should remain anonymous, other than saying they feel “vulnerable”. And why should anyone take your word for it? Does being a tax campaigner by default make you more honest than anyone else?
Being the owner of a company is not a special case for the opt out. But the law has usually been innocent until proven guilty. Privacy is a basic human right – so we shouldn’t have to even ask. These disclosures are based on the idea that business is inherently criminal in some fashion.
So why not stop there? Why shouldn’t we have a law that forces every individual to have their tax return publicly available? That way tax campaigners can check up on individuals too. Why not set an example and be the first to go public and publish yours, instead of just claiming you pay the right amount of tax. I have no reason to believe you – and looking through some of your other posts you seem more than a bit economical with the truth.
Let me tell you a little about one of my businesses.
We run garages and gas station franchises across southern and eastern Africa. We use tax havens mostly for simplicity, as the owner/investors of the business are based across the world, and to avoid double taxation where double tax treaties are not in place. We also use tax havens to give us some protection against what are often corrupt governments in some of the countries we operate in.
Our business has been threatened, extorted, has expropriation attempts made, fuel deliveries stopped to try and force us to sell and one of our gas stations was torched. And it’s little or no use turning to the politicians or police in many cases – as they are often the ones trying to seize our assets.
These are reasons why my partners and I might not want our names to be publicly available for all and sundry to see. Let alone some self-important tax justice mob who will claim that because we use tax havens we are doing something untoward.
My guess is your donor doesn’t have to put up with anything on the scale we do. Assuming they have to put up with anything at all, given how low profile donating to you is likely to be. Your claims could easily be cover for something else. Maybe the donor is actually a political donor, which would be embarrassing for either you or them. But we have no way of checking, do we?
Yet you want to force these disclosures on everyone else.
I would call you a hypocrite, but I think you are actually something much worse.
You don’t have to own a limited company
A women of a certain age who was sole trustee of a will trust doing her relative’s bidding did have reason to be protected when women in a similar position had been harassed leading one to commit suicide
And you reveal your callousness by your indifference
And you have not a shred of a right to privacy – because you sought limited liability. She did not. Nor did she tax plan. Indeed, the funds were never hers.
As for the rest of your nonsense – precisely because individuals have unlimited liability I do not ask for their tax returns.
Now please don’t waste my time with your nonsense again.
And please note” I never had to disclose anything as to any source of income I enjoyed, which also proves her bizarre your logic is. I just chose to disclose most of it. That’s real freedom for you. But you would not know what that means.
Robbie says:
“OK, corporations aren’t people, but they are owned by people. Through public registers of ownership those owners can be targeted by more unscrupulous types”
and its comedy time in anonymous-land.
Its funny how the people outside of secrecy jurisdictions don’t seem to be having any big vulnerablity problems.
BTW the folks hiding stuff in tax-havens ARE “the unscrupulous types” (or was that too obvious).
Geerkay
Let’s just be clear here – company owners are often targeted by various groups. Tax campaigners are just one of them – and some of their campaigns have been less than honest. I remember the Vodafone/Verizon case, where tax campaigners claimed Vodafone avoided huge taxes, and used tax havens whilst doing so. Yet of course the reality was that they complied entirely with UK, US and EU law – the specific shareholders exemption set up by Brown in 2002 in this case – and the holding company for the deal was based in the Netherlands.
One of my points that Ricard seems less than keen to answer though is why tax campaigners themselves are happy to be less accountable, by accepting anonymous donations with no oversight. Should they be allowed to play by different rules? It stinks of hypocrisy.
Tax research UK and the Tax Justice Network both seem to have benefited from anonymous donors, and neither seems to have paid any tax themselves. Tax Research UK seems to pay out all of it’s profits directly to Richard Murphy. isn’t this in itself avoiding tax? Definitely it will avoid some national insurance, but more importantly is it fair that we demand to see companies ownership, accounts and how much tax they pay, when Richard Murphy can pay out all of Tax Research’s (quite large) income to himself, and then how much tax he pays is then hidden from view?
I am basically saying that tax campaigners have to play by exactly the same rules they are forcing on everyone else. But in practice, they aren’t.
There are many good reasons for being based in tax havens. And last time I checked avoiding tax is perfectly legal.
Of course what you and the tax justice league are really arguing for is more government control of private industry, and higher taxes across the board.
I just said you hadn’t the intelligence to debate here, and you prove it
I pay the tax on Tax Research LLP, as does my wife
We do that to ensure we cannot void tax in a company structure
And TJN does pay tax when it has taxable income
You are simply talking utter nonsense
Please do not call again
Robbie,
Gearrkay is right about it being hard to remain polite especially so in the face of pure dumbness – for example:
“And last time I checked avoiding tax is perfectly legal.”
And the last time I checked the whole point of the campaigns against tax havens is to change unjust laws. The next time you try to make a point make sure that you actually have one.
You are huffing and puffing and calling what I say nonsense, and abusing someone else on this thread. But you are not answering the basic questions. Why are you being so hypocritical, by claiming the right to privacy and secrecy on behalf of your donor because it suits you, but then saying companies and the individuals behind them don’t have the same rights?
You can say all you want about your donor. It might be true, but it might not. We have no proof or evidence, and that is really the point. You could be taking money from a political party, or somebody with a particular agenda against another company and we would never know – we would have to simply trust you. And you say this is good enough.
You don’t have to have a Limited Liability Partnership either. But you do. Your partnership accepted the donation. If you were willing to play by the same rules that you are forcing on companies, you should have either made it clear your donor would have to be public, or that you could not accept the donation.
The problem really has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with you bending the rules to suit yourself when it is in your favor.
I do have a right to privacy, limited liability or not. Saying I don’t because I sought limited liability is simply incorrect, making me think you don’t really know what you are talking about.
It is in fact a basic human right, and unless I am very much mistaken part of the European Convention on Human Rights. Being a company owner does not affect that right.
Limited liability has NOTHING to do with privacy – and I challenge you to find any legal text to say it does.
You don’t disclose your income. Tax Research LLP’s accounts are on record, but that is it. You draw money from the LLP, which seems to pay little or no tax, and then how much personal tax you pay is anyone’s guess.
a) I am being more transparent than 99.99% of all business in the world and 100% of right-wing think tanks. I can live with that.
b) No LLP pays tax: the partners do.
c) I don’t ask for anyone’s tax return on public record. I don’t offer mine.
d) I did have to have an LLP – my chartered accountancy professional indemnity insurers did not want me to run a campaigning /research business in my own name as well
e) There is no relationship between declaring turnover and declaring ownership: I have never asked anyone to declare all their income line by line
Now, with respect, you really are out of your depth and talking nonsense. Please don’t call again
“Pimento” says:
“Let me tell you a little about one of my businesses.”
That extended rant wasn’t “little”. What you could have said was: ‘We exploit poor, developing nations, pay little or no tax in return and then offer self-pitying, anoymous sermons to show that we loathsomely resent the very places that we are “investing” in’.
That’d do it, I reckon (assuming that anything you’ve said was true to begin with).
Robbie says:
“OK, corporations aren’t people, but they are owned by people. Through public registers of ownership those owners can be targeted by more unscrupulous types,…”
You think there are people more unscrupulous?
The tenor of the rest of your comment indicates the levels you happily stoop to.
Pimento says:
“I am a part owner of various companies, some based for investment reasons [Aye. Right] in tax havens…….
“….Now though we have a great argument for the reason — we feel vulnerable.”
You have every reason to feel vulnerable. You need to be aware of where the real threat comes from though: those predators with teeth sharper, and appetites bigger than your own. Undermine the law and you become their rightful prey suddenly.
You really want to live in the jungle ?
You won’t get your Whiskas Meaty Chunks.
Then perhaps Marco will elucidate. It read badly to me. By the way I don’t buy the argument that open disclosure encourages kidnapping. You assume too much of those who may not agree with you on everything. I am all for full disclosure and always have been – I would just like to see rogue states comply as well.
Ah, the old ‘if they do I will argument’ which guarantees ‘I won’t then’
You really are full of all the usual c**p aren’t you?
Michael says:
“By the way I don’t buy the argument that open disclosure encourages kidnapping”
Neither do I. Its ludicrous. That’s why I was making fun of it.
Michael says:
” I would just like to see rogue states comply as well.”
It will require a high degree of international cooperation to get the biggest rogue state to comply.
The US does international only when it suits, and when they make the rules. I don’t think we should be joining them in that stance and Brexit makes it increasingly likely.
Robbie says:
“Can I ask why you think that it is wrong for people not to have privacy? ”
You seem to have slipped an extra negative in there, I assume that’s a mistake.
In which case I would venture to suggest that it is one factor in keeping cannibalism in check. There may be a financial parallel.
Humans are social animals. Privacy has limits and they are negotiable.
Richard
Not true. I’m personally aware of it happening in Germany during the Bader Meinhof days (which is why so many Germany Middelstand companies are owned by Austrian Foundations), and also in Mexico where there are very wealthy individuals who have even had their personal tax information sold by tax officials to criminal gangs. It absolutely does and has happened. I’m told it is also common in Brazil although I’ve only heard that second hand. The other two examples I have first-hand knowledge of.
I have no idea who you are Simon
And what you are saying is that the data is already available to gangs and in that case new information to stop the criminal use of the proceeds can only help stop what is happening
This whole thing is just latest gimmick in a bottom-of-the-barrell scramble for new excuses no matter how lame. Their game is drawing closer to an end and they can know it.
Its been a long (and I mean long) time since I’ve heard mention of the Baader-Meinhof gang. Perhaps our next installment will feature the Red Brigades, Patty Hearst, the Weathermen and Carlos the Jackal. Reaching back 40-odd years really is scraping the bottom.
With this post it is interesting how you’ve brought some jesters out of the woodwork.
BTW, sightly off-topic (?), I did a quick Google search to check a correct spelling and found this to be quite interesting:
‘You may have heard about Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon before.’ ‘(It) is the phenomenon where one stumbles upon some obscure piece of information–often an unfamiliar word or name–and soon afterwards encounters the same subject again, often repeatedly. Anytime the phrase “That’s so weird, I just heard about that yesterday” would be appropriate’. ‘Despite science’s cries that a world as complex as ours invites frequent coincidences, intuition tells us that such an explanation is inadequate’. ‘The reason for this is our brains’ prejudice towards patterns.’ ‘The more scientifically accepted name nowadays is “frequency illusion”‘.
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/
‘The considerably catchier sobriquet “Baader-Meinhof phenomenon” was invented in 1994 by a commenter on the St. Paul Pioneer Press’ online discussion board, who came up with it after hearing the name of the ultra-left-wing German terrorist group twice in 24 hours.”
https://psmag.com/social-justice/theres-a-name-for-that-the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon-59670
No coincidence here I suppose.
🙂
Richard
Not sure how you possibly drew that conclusion.
The Bader Meinhof kidnappings were in the late 1970s. The beneficial ownership information re German private companies was, at that time, on public record, along with their accounts. Children of wealthy industrialists were kidnapped from schools and random demands based on information gleaned from those public records. That is fact. I have a relative who was a senior member of a Bavarian police force. I know.
I also know – a former client of mine – a wealthy Mexican businessman whose personal tax records were sold by his regional tax office to a criminal gang, who had full details of his wealth. From those details they were able to blackmail him by tying those personal records back to his Mexican companies whose beneficial ownership was on public record, even though their accounts were not. His wife was kidnapped not once, but twice, by the criminal gang. Fortunately she was not harmed. This is also 100% factual.
I cannot therefore sit back and allow your opening post to go unchallenged. It is absolutely untrue.
With respect, I do not believe a word you are saying
Now I could be wrong here but I think Norway ( or is it Sweden ) has personal tax returns as a matter of public record. So maybe why not if we are going down that route go for that , full disclosure of everything. After all it does not seem to have harmed Norway ( or Sweden if it is that country ). As for this one anonymous donor Richard has posters should let it go as it is not relevant ( and although I disagree with his position on some things I do not doubt his reasons for not disclosing being valid and do not need to know what they are as those reasons would probably make identity clear to those who want to know anyway – I assume).
But I am not asking for public tax returns
Simon says:
” I’m personally aware of it happening in Germany during the Bader Meinhof days…….. personal tax information sold by tax officials to criminal gangs……. examples I have first-hand knowledge of.”
Balancing risk and reward is very much talked about in financial circles and very badly understood.
You have ‘first-hand knowledge’ of people who have apparently miscalculated the risks of antisocial behaviour. The response to prolonged insult is rarely proportionate – certainly not in the eyes of those who fall victim to the backlash whilst proclaiming their innocence.
What the establishment calls ‘terrorism’ the insulted call the struggle for freedom.
It’s messy, and most of the casualties tend to be by way of collateral damage. But don’t forget; It’s people like you who set the ground rules and then cry foul when they are turned against them.
No sympathy from this quarter. Sorry. You want free market you may have to pay the price, or you may get off literally, and metaphorically, ‘Scot Free’
I hope Richard does not consider kidnap, murder and extortion committed in the past by Red Army Faction and or today by Mexican gangs as part of a “struggle for freedom”.
It is all very well for Richard to say he does not believe it, but the reality of life in places like Mexico is that anyone with wealth (and many without) have to deal with the real possibility of loved ones being kidnapped for ransom.
And that risk will not increase or reduce by the publication of beneficial ownership
Indeed, you make my case for me: BO data is not the cause of this
Thanks to Richard and John it looks like business with be going up in the Crown Dependencies.
Cheers boys!
Don’t doubt me: you will be forced to comply
Richard you once predicted that Jersey would be bust by 2015.
You are the man who cried Wolf mate.
Its business model is falling apart and it’s only solvent because of QE.
I didn’t predict the second part. That’s true.
But GFC2 is on its way.
Compliance actually will not be that much of an issue and at least our register will be accurate , true and compliant. Some clients will move but most will not be that fazed. In any event all this has been driven by OECD initiatives . I doubt TJN had much influence in the process.
Who do you think drove the OECD process?
And thanks to folks like “James” the blanket annihilation of tax-havens will happen sooner than it might have otherwise.
All good things come to an end eventually – all bad things too.
Cheers, James!
Well if was not you
You did not drive the OECD process
I guess that’s why I and others were consulted throughout
Michael says:
“Well if was not you”
‘if’ ?? !
While you are stamping your little feet it’s difficult to key properly. Do try to get a grip and keep a sense of proportion.
James says:
“Thanks to Richard and John it looks like business with be going up in the Crown Dependencies.”
Enjoy. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.
Richard,
I have been following this debate and have had a look at TJN and TRUKs accounts.
TRUK doesn’t seem to pay any tax from the accounts I have seen.
TJN pays very little tax. A couple of thousand pounds on turnover many times larger than that.
I am also very suspicious of TJNs activity. They seem to be deferring income and have a very variable term for administrative expenses. Also they often have large cash balances in the bank and very variable creditors (which is unlikely for grant funded things like this).
Such things are very common in companies which are looking to minimize their operating profit, to pay little or no tax.
Every year TJN manage to have tiny net surpluses after huge total turnover, which is either incredibly lucky or someone is managing their accounts to avoid paying tax. I say avoid, but some of this looks distinctly suspect. It’s uncanny.
Wow: someone is sending you lot on a wild goose chase. Let me guess who the ring master is….
But let me tell you what the answer is.
Tax Research LLP doesn’t pay tax because the partners do on every penny of the profit at income tax rates. Oh, and NIC too. No tax avoidance, unlike using a company. So that’s simple.
And I have not been a director of TJN for a long time but three things.
a) It pays tax when it has a taxable surplus.
b) It does not seek to make a taxable surplus – because its funders pay for it to break even. That;’s the game it’s in. The secret is it’s a ‘not for profit’. That’s why it does not make any.
c) And the cash and large creditors: that’s because funders frequently pay up front. But there are clauses that if the work is done the grant must be repaid. So the unearned grant (that is the part not spent: that’s how you know it’s not earned) is a liability. That’s called accountancy, and contract law.
It’s not uncanny. That’s how the system works in not for profits.
But iot looks like you really don’t understand that people like John Christensen and I were looking for livings (for sure; I’ve made one) but not profit. I guess that’s just not in your comprehension range.
I must say I as indications go I like what I am seeing in this forum. It seems that this news:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/05/03/there-will-be-no-apology-to-the-uks-tax-havens/
is the thing that has really hit home among those who would be directly affected by it, but your rebuttal of their latest excuse: “blackmail, extortion and kidnap” (FFS) has set some of them off a treat.
Let their be no mistake about it. The volume of bitching, squealing, counter-accusation and all-round what-about-ery above is is a sure sign that the pressure now being applied to tax-havens is starting to make a difference. As you said in the ‘no apology’ post: ‘They have, at last, smelt the coffee.’
And as John D would say: “barista, doppio per favore”.
Actually, tea with lemon for me at this time of night
But in the morning, yes indeed
And the nonsense is all coming from Worstall: he seems to be writing about me rather a lot these days
It’s pretty sad really that I am the epicentre of his universe
Ah. Worstall,
I might have thought that it was something more significant. The quantity had me distracted but I will concede that the quality is consistent with his record.
“Artem”,
You say: “I have been following this debate and have had a look at TJN and TRUKs accounts”
Oh! Have you really? Well, that would mean that those accounts are publicly available, disclosed and transparent,which is to say – not secret and certainly not offshore.
That is the blindingly obvious point that you and all the other dolts above have clearly missed yet managed to reinforce every time that you have tried to have had a go at these not-for-profit NGO’s
Talk about desperate and drawing a long bow. Do think that R. Murphy would keep publishing your comments if they had actually made a damaging point. He is lapping this up and the joke is on you.
At any rate you are right. The NGO’s that you mentioned are fully transparent and thanks for reminding us.
Dearie Me! Artem.
Snide and vacuous insinuation ? Is that the best you can come up with ?
Try senna pods. That might help.
letter from James Anderson Published in the FT.
“It is wholly disingenuous to enforce [corporate registration transparency] measures unilaterally on BOTs without also enforcing them across UK crown dependencies as well. What a great way to destroy the UK’s unique global cross-border business network, just when Brexit makes it all the more important, as a means of facilitating global trade and London’s position as the world’s leading centre for financial and professional services.”
Couldn’t agree more. All the more reason for the Crown Dependencies to accept the same terms. Pour encourager les autres.
Crown Dependencies have options, they can make choices. (For the time being)
Agreed!
For the time being
Simon is correct about early 1970s West Germany although Baader has two ‘A’s
Commerzbank published an annual guide in book form called “Wer Gehört Zu Wem” (Who owns what) in which the major shareholders (e.g. the Quandt family/BMW) were identified and small shareholders (called Streubesitz) were not.
Crikey: that was not hard data to find
And nothing to do with registers
Well what do you expect?
He’s taking the piss.