• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pandora Papers

Hlafordlaes

Disorder of Kilopi
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
20,548
Location
State of Flux
Well Czech Prime minister is in there, 12M GBP deep. And parliament elections are coming up this Friday. So we'll see.
He has already let us know it was published specially to harm him in the elections.
 
I predict that the actual blow, if any, will amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Legal consequences will be minimal, and electoral consequences will be nil.

Yet again, we're in complete agreement, although you might have the nil and minimal back to front.

The only thing that surprises me is that people are either surprised or think it will make a blind bit of difference.

I'd be prepared to bet Prince Andrew will travel to America to face a trial over his underage sex exploits before there are any consequences of the Pandora Papers.
 
Quite. Most of it is legal on paper, though you're bound to get some questions asked here and there. The Blair couple avoiding a six-figure stamp duty when they bought a house might be legal, but doesn't look good if you're trying for good PR.
 
I happen to personally know two people with >$100 million in assets who are running scared, having been already hit hard by the tax penalities stemming from the 2012 (and ongoing) HSBC scandals. One has already lost over 60% of his assets to penalities and back taxes, the other is in court and she is about to go down. Because not every wealthy person is famous or newsworthy, you do not always hear about consequences, but this information is a treasure trove for tax collectors.
 
Who benefits from the leak?

Who benefits from crime fighting? The rule of law, for one. More broadly, however, your skepticism is fairly well-placed, as major political parties in the West depend on these same people.

Be it all as it may, you cannot successfully manage aggregate demand without deficit-driven boom-bust cycles, as is the case since Reagan, or without tackling the underlying problem of underconsumption by the very wealthy, regardless of any sort of moralizing.
 
Yet again, we're in complete agreement, although you might have the nil and minimal back to front.

The only thing that surprises me is that people are either surprised or think it will make a blind bit of difference.

I'd be prepared to bet Prince Andrew will travel to America to face a trial over his underage sex exploits before there are any consequences of the Pandora Papers.

What surprises me is how swiftly meek acquiescence is declared, and belief persists in the lack of real consequence. In this case, assume you are correct and it "makes no difference" in policy or practice. It will nevertheless make, and is making, a profound difference today. I realize this is hard, but should you care to do so, you might provide insights into the deficit-driven boom and bust cycles since 1980, just for starters, and provide your solution.

So far, not a soul has been able to put up any meaningful dukes. :boggled:
 
Well Czech Prime minister is in there, 12M GBP deep. And parliament elections are coming up this Friday. So we'll see.
He has already let us know it was published specially to harm him in the elections.

Well, boo hoo. Maybe he should have declared that Riviera mansion before campaign start.

As for legal consequences, I assume they will be minimal because the majority of the unearthed cases involving Western politicials don't actually involve anything illegal, and in a not insignificant portion the connection to Panama will be the main dubious factor. When it comes to e.g. Russian politicians or oligarchs, fraud sanctioned by Putin is de facto legal (but to balance things out, fraud not sanctioned by Putin will be penalized even when fictional).
 
Well, boo hoo. Maybe he should have declared that Riviera mansion before campaign start.

As for legal consequences, I assume they will be minimal because the majority of the unearthed cases involving Western politicials don't actually involve anything illegal, and in a not insignificant portion the connection to Panama will be the main dubious factor. When it comes to e.g. Russian politicians or oligarchs, fraud sanctioned by Putin is de facto legal (but to balance things out, fraud not sanctioned by Putin will be penalized even when fictional).

Today's long article in the Toronto Star points out that some of the activities violate the laws of the British Virgin Islands (strengthened after the Panama Papers came out) with respect to disclosure of the true ownership of accounts held there. There may some consequences, no mater how minor, if the BVI wants to pretend to uphold the rule of law.
 
Little surprise there.

It does give him something in common with Imran, though. Maybe they could get together over a cup of tea?
 
U.S. Government Provides Another Trove Of Offshore Papers Of People It Dislikes

b said:
[...] The published papers are a system's fake critique of itself. While they support U.S. foreign policy objectives by accusing people the U.S. does not like they will also lead to more support for financial surveillance and spyimg. By disgracing or eliminating overseas competition they promote U.S. tax havens like Alaska, Nevada and Delaware to foreign 'customers':

The Pandora Papers contains details on over 200 trusts set up in the U.S. in recent years. In dozens of cases, clients have abandoned more traditional havens, such as the British Virgin Islands and the Bahamas, in favor of the U.S.

The most popular destination has been South Dakota, where the past decade has seen the value of assets held in trusts reach more than $360 billion. State laws in South Dakota allow for the establishment of secret trusts which don’t have to pay a cent of tax to the state for any earnings. Unlike most states, which restrict the life of trusts to a century or less, South Dakota trusts are also “perpetual,” meaning they have no end date. This means they can continue making tax free gains and passing them on to future generations — theoretically forever.​

So the U.S. set out to blame offshore tax havens and foreign leaders of corruption while it itself is the biggest sinner with regards to both. There is pattern in this. Whenever the U.S. accuses some foreign person or government of doing 'something' their is a high probability that 'something' is exactly what the U.S. is doing itself.


99074f54e3b17f64e.gif
 
the odd things is that authoritarians would be very disappointed if their leaders didn't grift at every opportunity.
 
Why would the Torys order an investigation into dodgy offshore accounts when they can just get together and compare monthly statements?
 
So current Czech PM Andrej Babis lost the election. I mean he's very near second, but he can't form majority. He didn't lose much compared to polls though, it's more like his potential partners lost, so Panama Papers didn't seem to play big role.
 

Back
Top Bottom