Offshore News blog posts all the latest news, articles and reports on the Offshore Banking world, including Offshore Finance, Offshore Credit Cards, Offshore Merchant Accounts, Tax Haven Companies and Offshore Investments.

 

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Price war prompts tax loophole review

THE Treasury is to order a clampdown on a long- running tax loophole after supermarket giant Asda launched a new price war over cheap CDs and DVDs.

The store chain is offering UK customers tax-free music and films by importing them from Jersey minus the 17.5 per cent VAT.

It can do this under the law as long as each individual import is less than £18 a package - which means selling one or two discs at a time to comply.

The move matches Tesco's similar scheme from Jersey which it launched in December, taking advantage of the same tax loophole.

Other companies do the same, including those selling camera film and other items. Amazon, the online retailer, for instance, has been selling from Jersey for a year.

When customers want more than £18-worth it is divided into separate packages so that each individual shipment is less than £18 to keep within the law.

Asda's move could be the final straw for Customs and Excise officials who are fed up at losing millions in revenue from the lost VAT payments.

While Tesco limits its choice to chart favourites, Asda claims its move will include its entire entertainment catalogue of 120,000 CDs, 20,000 DVDs and 1,700 computer games.

Asda will offer customers CDs from artists such as A-Ha, Feeder and Joss Stone for £8.97, compared with £9.77 charged in its 350 UK stores.

Richard Ramsgate, Asda's online director, said: "If it's available in the UK, we'll sell it from Jersey and pass on the savings to shoppers."

Asda admitted it was using a tax loophole, but said it was not breaking the law.

Mr Ramsgate added: "We are offering our customers more choice and saving them the VAT. Because the items are under £18 the VAT is not charged.

"Each item will be packaged separately to comply with the rules, but they will arrive at the same time."

The decision by Asda has angered ministers who have ordered Treasury officials to take action to close the loophole. The Treasury said it was losing £80 million a year through retailers avoiding tax. A spokesman said: "It is not illegal, but it is our policy that we clamp down on aggressive tax-avoidance schemes. We have this under review."

Scotsman.com News - UK - Price war prompts tax loophole review

Swiss Banks shed Tax Haven tag

The withdrawal tax imposed by Finance Minister P Chidambaram in this year’s Budget may not be the only way to track down black money especially money flowing out of India.

The Switzerland government, on the eve of President APJ Abdul Kalam’s visit to the country, appears anxious to assure governments world over that its records are open for scrutiny and that “Switzerland is no longer the place to hide illegal funds”.

According to William Frei, deputy head of the political division on finances, the Swiss government has already frozen 80 bank accounts which are related directly or indirectly to the Al Qaeda and also the Taliban. “The amount this adds up to is nearly 34 million Swiss Franks or $25.5 million,” he said.

This was not always the case, and Frei is the first to admit that despite having a ‘Know Your Customer’ law in 1977, the “Swiss banking system has been misunderstood”.

After September 11, 2001, the United States got tough and it resulted in a July 2003 Money Laundering Act, where lack of due diligence could result in the withdrawal of a bank's license. Frei proudly states that “we (the Swiss government) received the highest recommendation from the US anti-terrorism authority this year”.

Not just terror money, the Act also covers money gained through corruption. “We have to perforce keep track of certain 'politically exposed persons,” says Frei. No one can open a Swiss bank account by correspondence, under the Mexico Convention, 2003, and banks have been told to display 'due diligence' while accepting money.

“The Swiss government has returned nearly $700 million of Ferdinand Marcos’ money to the Philippines government in August 2003. Alberto Fujimori, former President of Peru, also had his account frozen amounting to nearly $77 million, which was repatriated to Peru,” said Frei.

Former Nigerian leader Suny Abacha's account was also frozen (it contained $200 million), while another $450 million in various other accounts was returned to Nigeria.

All this, however, definitely runs against the Swiss instinct for privacy and anonymity and Frei is the first to admit it.

“The banks have to act as detectives, whereas , its not their job. In any case, there are many destinations for suspect money to go, like the Caribbean,” he says.

Economy & Policy

British funds sector 'under threat from tax regime'

TAX and regulatory burdens could pose a threat to Britain's position as a leading global centre for asset management, according to a report released today.

Currently the third-largest global centre for fund management, the UK's £2.8 trillion industry could lose assets and jobs to low-cost rival centres, a study by the Investment Management Association and Corporation of London concluded.

The industry is critical of the "overly rigid" implementation of European Union directives and wary of the competitive threat of offshore financial centres such as Dublin and Luxembourg.

Nearly one in four respondents to the survey said regulatory or tax regimes were the single greatest disadvantage of being located in the UK.

Asset management companies are major UK employers. Staffing levels at fund firms in cities such as London and Edinburgh are expected to grow by 0.2 per cent over the course of 2005 to a total of 37,870, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Michael Snyder, chairman of the Corporation of London's policy committee, said: "Attention needs to be turned to what measures can be taken to protect the competitive advantages of this major UK industry."

Foreign domiciles have narrowed the gap on London in recent years. Assets in Luxembourg-based portfolios, for example, rose to more than £820 million at the end of 2004, according to data from research firm Fitzrovia.

"Luxembourg and Dublin have seen substantial growth in activities associated with support and servicing of funds, and have developed as 'centres of excellence' in these activities," today's survey said.

VAT is the most significant tax in driving funds to domicile funds outside Britain and capital gains tax and stamp duty were also reasons for basing hedge funds abroad.

Scotsman.com Business - Top Stories - British funds sector 'under threat from tax regime'

World's premier Anti-Money Laundering Organization arrives in Dubai (ACAMS)

The Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS), the world's leading membership association of specialists in anti-money laundering (AML) and combating terrorist financing (CFT), will launch its first Middle Eastern chapter in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on May 25th, 2005.

Over 100 of the area's top AML/CFT professionals will attend, along with special guest H.E. Sultan Bin Nasser Al Suwaidi, Governor of UAE's Central Bank and Chairman of the nation's National Anti-Money Laundering Committee.

'Dubai was a logical choice for the first Middle East chapter for two reasons,' said Dr. Efra�n Venezuela, ACAMS' Director of Education and Programs Development. 'First, it is a major international banking center. In addition, the members themselves, with the support of the local government, were very enthusiastic about creating a chapter and worked to make this a reality.'

At a local level, the chapter will further ACAMS' main mission: providing education and professional development to AML/CFT specialists to enhance their skills and thus combat these crimes more effectively. It will do this with special training events, workshops and meetings designed to promote the interchange of news, tips and ideas among the members.

Swiss Banks Freeze Accounts

Berne, May 24. (UNI): Switzerland has frozen 82 bank accounts of individuals linked with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban since the 9/11 incidents in the United States, thus making a significant contribution in the global war on terrorism.

This had been done in line with the United Nations resolution 1267, approved by the General Assembly to relentlessly fight the menace of terrorism worldwide, according to Mr William Frei, Deputy Head of the Political Division (Finances), in the Swiss Government.

The total amount frozen was to the tune of $25.5 million, which was nearly one third of the assets of various terrorist groups seized worldwide since the gruesome terrorist strikes in the US, Mr Frei told a group of visiting Indian journalists.

Strongly refuting allegations that Switzerland was providing a safe haven to the illegal funds of terrorist groups, he said Berne was cooperating fully with the international community in the fight against terrorism.

Meanwhile, top government sources said Switzerland was tightening its provisions against money laundering.

"Identifying the origin of the funds and the identity of the persons behind them are the two key defensive measures we are taking to prevent money laundering or the financing of terrorism and organised crime," they added.

The sources said rules stipulating the care to be exercised when dealing with the assets of politically exposed persons (PEP) were intended to avoid potentates shifting funds from their countries to Switzerland. International cooperation was also being expanded.

"But Swiss banking secrecy, the purpose of which is to protect banks' customers is not to be called into question. It does not apply unreservedly, however. It is revoked if criminal activities such as terrorism, organised crime and tax fraud are suspected," the sources said.

They explained that the Swiss banking secrecy was not absolute and did not apply in cases of prosecution. There was no such thing as an "anonymous account" in Switzerland.

There were, however, "numbered accounts", which could be savings, deposit or securities accounts where the name of the creditor or depositor had been replaced with a number.

The bank, within the framework of its due diligence obligations, was nevertheless required to know the identity of the account holder as well as the true beneficial owner.

Swiss team raises money laundering issue

ISLAMABAD: A three-member Swiss delegation led by the Chairman of the Swiss Basel Institute on Governance, Prof Dr Mark Pieth, called on the Adviser to the prime minister on Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs and Statistics, Dr Salman Shah, on Tuesday to discuss ways to curb the menace of money laundering.

The Swiss delegation is on a fact-finding mission in Pakistan to formulate recommendations to enable the Swiss government to evolve an international system to combat money laundering.

According to an official statement, Dr Salman Shah informed the Swiss delegation about the legal and institutional steps taken by the government of Pakistan to combat money laundering. Referring to the geographical location of Pakistan, the adviser said Pakistan had invested a lot of resources to control the flow of illegal funds and drugs from neighboring countries. He added that technical and financial assistance from the Swiss and the international community was needed to combat this menace.

Pakistan has finalised an anti-money laundering law with the help of eminent jurists and parliamentarians. The law has been submitted to the cabinet and he added that it would be sent to the parliament for legislation after it was approved by the cabinet. The State Bank of Pakistan has set up a financial intelligence unit to monitor and locate the source and transaction of foreign remittances to Pakistan. Referring to the remittances by overseas Pakistanis through the “hawala” system, Dr Shah pointed out that most of the operators are now routing their money through banks instead of “hawala”. We have improved our system considerably. Pakistan has a very efficient banking system with a long history; therefore it would be unfair if the international community put Pakistan on any watch list. We are ready to follow the international common standard and best practices to combat money laundering which are suitable for our environment.

The adviser also asked the Swiss delegation to arrange a seminar in Pakistan during which the experience of the Swiss banking system could be shared with the Pakistani financial industry and an in-depth discussion could be held to discuss the best code and practices. staff report

Daily Times - Site Edition

Yahoo Tests VOIP Internet Phone

Yahoo! has begun beta-testing its latest Messenger client, rewritten to support VoIP-quality, full duplex, voice chat over broadband. The software works around firewalls using NAT but doesn't, as yet, reach to the POTS phone network - it's PC to PC only, for now. Leader Skype offers this capability, albeit thanks to a hokey billing system based on PayPal.

Yahoo! is lagging someway behind rival portal AOL. The latter introduced a VoIP client six weeks ago. AOL's VoIP client isn't quite integrated with its IM client, but it is fully featured phone service, available in 40 cities for $18.99 a month up, with plans at $29.99 and $39.99 monthly.

As Sun Microsystems' VP for broadband and media Glenn Edens pointed out in a recent interview, that's considerably more than the $20 cost of adding a long range plan to your old POTS phone bill. But that's the price of staying at the bleeding edge of emergent technology, we guess.

Windows users can download the bootstrap executable from Yahoo.com

China makes leap progress on fighting against money laundering

The Governor of the Bank of China Mr. Zhou Xiaochuan confirmed that China has fast tracked the legislation of anti-money laundering law.

At the 2nd Plenary meeting of Eurasian group on combating money laundering and financing of terrorism (EAG) in Shanghai on April 12 he highlighted China's latest breakthroughs on cracking down money laundering.

Under the central bank's initiative and leadership, an inter-ministerial joint conference, as well as a mechanism for concerted supervision by finance watchdogs, has been in place. A monitoring and analyzing center for money-laundering has also been established.

The public security department is intensifying its investigation into dubious capital deals and crackdown on illegal financing houses. A series of money laundering cases have been brought to light as a result of their probes into dubious transactions.

The central bank has launched a sweeping check-up on the implementation of anti-money laundering rules in financial institutions throughout the nation. Where the rules did not work effectively, penalties have been imposed.

China has also stepped up its cooperation with other countries and international organizations on fighting against money laundering. In February this year, it became observer of Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and is trying to be admitted a membership.

By People's Daily Online

Harmony chief quizzed over 74 offshore accounts

The national prosecuting authority in South Africa has opened an investigation into dozens of foreign bank accounts which bear the name of Bernard Swanepoel, the chief executive of Harmony Gold.

The move by the directorate of special operations, also known as the Scorpions, comes at a critical time for the gold mining firm, whose $6.2bn (£3.3bn) hostile bid for larger rival Gold Fields closes in three days.

The Scorpions are now looking at more than 70 accounts held in locations including Bermuda, the Isle of Man and Switzerland under the name of "Zacharias Bernardus Swanepoel" - the full name of the Harmony boss.

Article continues
Many of the accounts, with banks including Barclays and HSBC, show regular flows of cash moving between them, which have aroused the interest of dozens of regulatory authorities, including ones in Russia. The money transfers all involve relatively small figures of around $5,000.

Holding multiple accounts is illegal under South African financial regulations but Mr Swanepoel has told the Guardian that he only has one such holding outside of his country.

Last night his public relations team said the Harmony chief executive was glad to hear the FBI-style investigative agency was looking into the issue.

"He wrote a letter to the Reserve Bank requesting this [investigation] because he has never heard of them [the accounts] ... it must be some other person," said a spokeswoman.

The Guardian first revealed in February that it had uncovered a series of bank accounts with Mr Swanepoel's name on them as well as a smaller number bearing the name of Harmony's marketing director, Ferdinand Dippenaar.

The Scorpions now believe they have found 74, with a possible 16 others being reviewed. They believe the total sums of money involved could be £22m or upwards, well-placed sources have revealed.

Makhosini Nkosi, formal spokesman of the directorate of special operations, said he could not comment. "We do not talk about our investigations until they are completed," he said.

An "irrevocable undertaking" by the Russian miner Norilsk Nickel to back Harmony's assault on Gold Fields also expires on Friday. Norilsk owns 20% of Gold Fields.

Harmony last month reported worse than expected financial losses and Mr Swanepoel was in London yesterday trying to drum up support for the Gold Fields takeover.

The task of enlisting support has been made harder because third-quarter figures were hit by a strike, restructuring and the impact of a strong local currency.

Losses could continue until 2007, according to analysts at Citigroup Smith Barney, which has also raised questions about Harmony's gold reserve figures.

Gold Fields, which is the fourth-biggest gold producer, urged its shareholders yesterday to continue to reject the hostile takeover offer from Harmony, the sixth-biggest producer.

Gold Fields said in a formal statement that the share-swap bid launched by Harmony last October did not represent fair value.

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Harmony chief quizzed over 74 offshore accounts

Crackdown on tax havens completed

Our parliamentary correspondent, Accountancy Age 23 May 2005

UK crackdown on offshore tax havens about to be completed

The UK is about to complete the crackdown on offshore tax havens required to avoid being subject to
the proposed European Union withholding tax regime.

The Commons is expected to approve four more regulations tomorrow authorising the exchange of
information about the holdings and tax liabilities of EU citizens required under the Savings
Directive with the Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, the Virgin Islands and Monsterrat.

Similar orders have already been approved covering Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and
non-reciprocal arrangements have been agreed with Anguilla, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and
Caicos Islands.

Gibraltar - whose compliance caused difficulties - does not require a separate agreement, as it is
technically part of the UK.

The directive is due to come into force on July 1.

Implementation has required decisive arm-twisting by Treasury ministers of island administrations
concerned at the effect the crackdown will have on their economies.

Link: Rich hide $11.5 trillion in tax havens
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2037126/rich-hide-trillion-tax-havens

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2135512/crackdown-tax-havens-completed

Money Laundering Crackdown Urged

Money-laundering crackdown urged
By CP

VANCOUVER -- Canadian regulators and police need a high-profile case to help signal to money
launderers that they are serious about stopping them from doing business in this country, a top
forensic accountant says.

"We have less of an enforcement mentality here than they do in countries like the United States and
the United Kingdom and we haven't really seen any high profile cases of large financial institutions
being reported in Canada," said Jim Hunter, a partner with KPMG specializing in forensics.

HIGH-PROFILE ENFORCEMENT

"Until people read something in the newspaper, I don't think they're going to take it seriously,"
Hunter said.

"We need some high-profile enforcement action in Canada and then people will take it seriously and
then money launderers will think maybe Canada is not the place for me."

About 80 of KPMG's senior forensic accountants from around the world hold their annual meeting today
in Vancouver.

Hunter said that money launderers and those that finance terrorism will always take the path of
least resistance.

"They always seek the soft underbelly," he said.

TERROR-RELATED CASH

"We've got a fairly lenient sentencing regime in Canada. If you're caught money laundering here,
you'll probably get less time in jail than you would in the United States."

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (Fintrac) has suggested that terror related
cash washing through Canada in the fiscal year ended March 31 was likely twice the previous year's
estimated total of $70 million.

However, the federal watchdog suggests the increase likely reflects better detection rather than a
growing terrorist threat.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Isle of Mann - 'We must shed 'Tax Haven' tag

Dropping the 'tax haven' label is critical for the Isle of Man to maintain credibility in the international community, according to Malcolm Couch, the Island's tax assessor.
Mr Couch gave an update on the government's tax strategy to this year's Manx Compliance Conference. He predicted a growing division in offshore centres with some jurisdictions falling away due to a lack of regulation and a smaller number, including the Isle of Man, thriving as well-respected international financial centres.

He said: 'My vision is that going forward we really have to put into a hole in the back garden and bury, the phrase "tax haven". In a way, the word "offshore" is also a bit dangerous, we are an "international finance centre".

Offshore implies something different. As we evolve our tax centre and regulatory framework, we are as well and better regulated than any of the usual suspects.

'We will be trying hard to educate the Manx population and the international business community, that the Isle of Man is a fantastic jurisdiction for inward investment. A good tax model based within a well-regulated triple-A rated environment, so they can feel certain about their tax treatment and probity. Isle of Man Plc has to have its own prospectus, a portfolio of things that we use to sell the Island. My role as tax assessor will continue to be a unique selling point (USP) for the Island.'

He said the Isle of Man would be the first of the Crown Dependencies to implement a zero-10 tax policy next April, giving an advantage over the Channel Islands in terms of attracting new business. He added that the withholding tax, set to accompany the EU's savings tax directive, is not designed to gather more tax, but was simply a measure to smooth cashflow to the Treasury.

'We need to square a number of circles. We have to meet EU requirements, maintain benefits to offshore companies and have a dynamic tax code. It has all been worked out very carefully. The Isle of Man government is small, but it's incredibly well connected, working well together. It also works very well with business. In my opinion the aim of government is always to foster what we do to make it as easy as possible to do business and keep that within a well-regulated form which stands up to external scrutiny. We are on a cusp and all the signs are that our economy is set to take us somewhere special.'

He confirmed that the EU's savings directive was almost certain to be implemented on July 1 this year. He said that the Island was well ahead of certain European nations in its readiness to deal with the implications of the directive.

'The directive is a typical EU dog's breakfast-type document. Contributions have been made from many EU member states, most don't understand what a trust is. We are way ahead of most states. People say, if that is the case, should the Isle of Man stand up and say we don't think we have you have cut the pitch, marked the lines or put the nets in place properly. That has been discussed in government, but our Manx response is to watch carefully and see what happens.'

Mr Couch also confirmed that the government were committed to introducing an income tax cap to encourage high net worth individuals to relocate to the Island.

'The intention is to make it as simple as possible, income tax up to a cap and that's it. A simple cap on worldwide income meaning that high net worth individuals with complex structures can have it all managed here. The feedback has been positive in the press, I would say we will see something like this in the next year or so, at a level to be decided.'

Rise and rise of an offshore man

Robert Winnett and Andrew Porter
JUST over seven years ago, in his second budget, Gordon Brown promised to clamp down on the “shadowy men in sunny places” promoting offshore tax avoidance schemes.

The new Labour government had just been hit by one of its first ministerial rows after it emerged that Geoffrey Robinson, the paymaster- general, had benefited from sheltering his money in a trust in Guernsey.

At the time it is unlikely Brown was familiar with the name Dr Paul Drayson. But he was just the sort of person he was hoping to deter from going offshore — a successful British businessman benefiting from the booming economy.

The year before, Drayson had made a fortune with the stockmarket flotation of PowderJect, a small pharmaceutical company he had set up with his wife and father-in-law.

Then, in January 1998, shortly before the budget, Drayson opened offshore companies on the Isle of Man, where businesses and their owners can pay virtually no tax on profits.

He set up two companies in Douglas, the island’s capital, to hold his and his family’s shares in PowderJect.

Over the next few years, more than £30m passed through the Draysons’ offshore trusts, called Ventana and Amalfi, and offshore companies, Vardale Limited and Sherdley Limited.

PowderJect’s company accounts detail how the Draysons were the benefactors of the trusts and companies that held millions of shares, largely tax-free. They also set up St Tropez Charters, which bought their yacht with money from the Isle of Man companies.

The family’s recent decision to bring its money back to the UK was neatly timed. Within months, Brown had closed the loophole and introduced a hefty tax penalty for people repatriating their fortune.

Drayson had been a staunch Labour supporter for several years. He was made a peer by Tony Blair after giving a series of generous donations to the party. Last week his position within the party was cemented when he was appointed junior defence minister.

Following inquiries by The Sunday Times, Drayson’s spokesman yesterday issued a statement that confirmed he had used offshore tax shelters until last year. The statement was also given to Labour-supporting Sunday newspapers in the hope of diluting the embarrassment for Drayson.

It said: “When Lord Drayson was an active businessman, some of his and his family’s financial interests were held in trusts offshore.

“Since entering public life, Lord Drayson took steps to ensure the trusts came onshore and would be taxed accordingly, with the full knowledge of the Inland Revenue. This move was completed last autumn.”

The Isle of Man regulatory authorities said last week that Drayson and his wife’s companies were liquidated on March 8 this year — the week before Brown introduced new laws to restrict British residents’ use of tax havens to avoid tax.

Timing has been a hallmark of Drayson’s career. He first came to public attention in 2002 after PowderJect won a £32m contract from the Department of Health to supply smallpox vaccines. It emerged Drayson had given two £50,000 donations to Labour, one during the procurement process for the vaccine.

Rise and rise of an offshore man - Sunday Times - Times Online

Minister put millions in tax haven

A multi-millionaire businessman who became a Labour minister last week has admitted holding part of his personal fortune in an offshore tax haven that experts say could have helped him avoid £3m in tax.

Lord Drayson, the new defence minister, established offshore trusts and companies in the Isle of Man that handled £30m he raised from the sale of his pharmaceuticals business. Experts say such arrangements are normally set up to avoid tax.

His actions, disclosed after inquiries by The Sunday Times, will embarrass the government, which has repeatedly sought to stop wealthy Britons avoiding tax by moving fortunes offshore.

He closed his offshore companies on March 8 this year — the week before Gordon Brown, the chancellor, introduced new laws to restrict British residents’ use of tax havens.

Last week financial experts said a scheme such as Drayson’s could have saved millions in tax. His decision to put the companies into liquidation in March is described as “immaculate timing”.

Yesterday, Drayson admitted holding “financial interests” offshore but said he brought his money back to Britain in the autumn.

Following an approach by The Sunday Times, his spokesman distributed a statement to left-leaning newspapers about the offshore trusts in the hope of diluting the political fallout for Labour.

Drayson was made a Labour peer by Tony Blair in May last year before being promoted to the defence team in last week’s reshuffle.

He has been a prominent Labour supporter since 2001 and has donated more than £1.1m to the party.

The chancellor is known to take a dim view of wealthy individuals who employ leading accountants to devise sophisticated tax avoidance schemes.

The issue has become particularly sensitive because the middle classes have been hit by a series of tax rises — including a clampdown on schemes to avoid inheritance tax on family homes — to pay for Labour’s spending on public services.

The Sunday Times can disclose that Drayson set up two offshore trusts — named Ventana and Amalfi — for him and his wife in 1997 shortly before PowderJect, the company he co-founded, was floated on the stock market.

Each trust, registered in Douglas, the capital of the Isle of Man, held 2.825m shares in PowderJect. Six months later the Draysons formed two offshore companies, Vardale and Sherdley, which were owned by the two trusts.

In 2003, PowderJect was bought by an American company that paid the Draysons’ offshore companies more than £30m for their shares. The money was sent to the Isle of Man, beyond the grasp of the UK Inland Revenue.

Financial experts estimate that such an arrangement could have helped the Draysons to avoid at least £3m in capital-gains tax on the sale of the shares. There may also have been inheritance tax benefits.

Minister put millions in tax haven - Sunday Times - Times Online

Towards a Truly Progressive Tax System

By Carl Milsted

After many disappointments, it does look like the Republicans are up to something good: getting rid of the income tax. The idea of a 23% national sales tax, or “Fair Tax” as it is coined, is getting a lot of buzz in Republican and conservative circles. Unlike the old “Flat Tax” proposal, the Fair Tax truly gets rid of the hated income tax once and for all. See www.fairtax.org for details.

Alas, many Democratic Party politicians and are screaming bloody murder, claiming that a national sales tax would be a huge shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. Even worse, these politicians are right! The Fair tax would be a huge tax cut for the rich. Wealthy families will be able to compound their investments indefinitely, tax deferred. Welcome to the new aristocracy.

So, should liberals oppose the Fair Tax? Should liberals become the defenders of the hated income tax? Or is it time for a counter-proposal?

First, let us admit that this plan has a lot of good things to be said for it—including things that are good from a liberal point of view.

# The Fair Tax is collected from businesses only. No longer will the government be able to bypass the 5th Amendment by using the IRS. Civil libertarians have reason to rejoice.

# Because it includes a rebate, the Fair Tax is actually a tax cut for the poor. While the poor do not pay income taxes, the working poor do pay considerable payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Since the Fair tax replaces these taxes as well as the personal income tax. If you purchase the poverty level’s worth of consumer goods, you pay no tax. If you purchase less, your tax rebate will be higher than the taxes you pay. Eco-hippies take note!

# The Fair Tax would be a huge boon for small business. Calculating income for tax purposes, and computing withholding from employee paychecks requires a great deal of overhead. A big corporation like Wal-Mart can devote specialists to the problem. A Mom and Pop operation has to divert Mom and Pop’s limited time to this effort. The Fair Tax would make it much easier for Mom and Pop businesses to compete against the big block stores.

# The current tax system hits mainly American labor, which ends up subsidizing foreign imports and outsourcing. The Fair Tax would make American manufacturing more competitive, since the sales tax would apply to both U.S. and foreign consumer products equally.

# The current system subsidizes the financial sector. It encourages low savings and high indebtedness through the mortgage deduction. It encourages workers to go to Wall St. with their retirement savings via their company’s pension and 401(k) plans. With the Fair Tax, homeowners could pay off their homes without tax penalty. Workers could put their savings into their own businesses tax free instead of have playing the market to get a tax break.

These are mighty good benefits, and the above list is not complete. But do we have to give up on a progressive tax system in order to get the benefits of the Fair Tax?

No, it is possible to have a liberal counter-proposal that is even better for the economy.

Besides giving a big loophole for the rich, the Fair Tax would have enforcement problems. Combine a 23% national sales tax with a 7% state sales tax and you get a 30% sales tax. This provides a very visible motivation to do business under the table. We can expect many service businesses to quietly offer “cash discounts” in order to bypass this tax. While the income tax is much harder to calculate than a sales tax, it does offer the “benefit” of being self-enforcing. Each expense recorded by one business is a source of revenue for another business or employee. To minimize one’s taxes, one must report on others. This is not true for a national sales tax.

So, if our counter-proposal had some other tax(es) to go along with a national sales tax, we could lower the rate and thus reduce the benefits of cheating, thereby cutting enforcement costs. But this benefit holds only if the supplemental taxes are at least as enforceable as a sales tax.

Let us reconsider the income tax. Income obeys the following mathematical identity:

Income = Consumption + Change in Wealth

That is, you either spend or save what you make. The Fair Tax only taxes the first term on the right hand side of this equation. This is the reason why the Fair Tax would be a huge tax break for the wealthy: the wealthy have a great deal more wealth than the rest of us. On average, the wealthy consume a smaller fraction of their income, so a consumption-only tax system results in the rich paying a lower proportion of their income than the middle class.

One way to fix this disparity would be to restore the capital gains tax. Make the capital gains tax the same as the sales tax and we get a flat tax system. (Actually, we get a progressive system once you figure in the rebate.) I do not like this idea because it requires a great deal of record keeping and individual tax filing to make it work. Further, it results in people “gaming the system” by holding onto investments longer than is optimal in order to defer paying capital gains taxes. This is bad for the economy.

There is a simpler approach: instead of taxing the change in wealth, tax wealth itself. A flat rate set of wealth taxes would hit the rich harder than the poor and middle class. Such taxes could be fairly simple to assess and collect—at least compared with income taxes.

Combine some wealth taxes with a lower rate national sales tax and you get a greatly simplified tax system that is more progressive than the system we have today.

So what do I mean by wealth taxes? Is this a call for having everyone report their possession to federal government in order to be taxed? No! I would only tax wealth that the government knows about already.

The classic wealth tax would be the real estate tax. This is how states and localities have been financed for centuries in this country. Property owners hate them because they are very visible. However, the assessment of property value requires very little work on the part of property owners compared to an income tax or even a sales tax. And note that there is no reason for the government to compile detailed records on individuals to collect this tax. Each county has records of who owns what property. Owners pay to each respective county. There is no need whatsoever to connect the county records together in order to determine how much a particular landowner owns. In theory, you could have numbered accounts owning land and the system would still work!

But property taxes are only for the state level. What about the federal level? Well, there are several sorts of property that the federal government is mainly in charge of enforcing: broadcast licenses, patents and copyrights immediately come to mind. Right-of-ways for railroads, pipelines and aircraft are also enforced at the federal level. These could all be taxed at that level.

My favorite idea for a federal wealth tax would be a value tax on corporations. Instead of taxing corporations based on their income—whatever that means—we tax corporations based on what they are worth on the open market. The value of any publicly traded corporation is easily accessed public knowledge: it is simply the market cap, the number of outstanding shares times the price of each share. We could compute the corporate tax of the entire Fortune 500 with a single computer hooked up to the Internet!

Not only would this tax be easy to compute, it would encourage big corporations to divest themselves of excess subsidiaries, holdings and sideline businesses. We would likely go from merger-mania to breakup-madness.

Combine these ideas with a national sales tax, and you will have a truly fair and simple tax system. But be forewarned: there will be much whining on the part of the truly rich.

Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr. is a senior editor of the Free Liberal. He is the author of HolisticPolitics.org. By day, Milsted is a physicist who writes software for national defense applications. He hopes to eventually move on to the more interesting and lucrative field of Mad Science.

The Free Liberal: Towards a Truly Progressive Tax System

New invention to detect caches of cash

Soon people will be looking for ways to mask it.

Drug traffickers who ship profits abroad in suitcases of cash are not apt to be thrilled with some new inventions being developed by federal scientists at the Idaho National Laboratory.

One sniffs the air for currency's chemical signature -- it can pick up a stack of bills from about 10 feet away. Another device beams electrons through packages or luggage to detect trace metals in the green ink.

And a third project, not yet started, would actually scan serial numbers of individual bills into a database.

The lab's lead scientist, Keith Daum, says the goal is to intercept cash used in illegal drug or terrorism transactions.

"When Joe the Druggie gets his $20 from an ATM and spends it on a (drug) pickup, and the money is later traced to a drug seller -- to me, that's evidence," Daum said in an interview.

It's unclear whether the legal system would view such evidence as admissible, and privacy advocates fear such inventions would infringe on civil liberties if adopted.

The cash sniffer is actually a gas chromatograph about the size of a cordless hand vacuum.

Here's how it works: Take a crisp $20 bill out of your wallet and put it up to your nose. That sweet, slightly acidic aroma is actually microscopic molecules of ink and paper landing on the nerve receptors inside your nose.

The device works in nearly the same way, but with much higher sensitivity. Airborne molecules land on a sensor. If enough molecules are detected, the device emits an alert.

Daum said a trained dog can do the same thing -- even better -- but not consistently and not over a long period.

The second device is simply called the "physics-based" detector. About the size of a small airport X-ray scanner, it scans an interior space for elemental metals used in the green ink. Radioactive rays strike the metals and turn into gamma rays, which are then measured by the machine. The more gamma rays detected, the higher the volume of cash bills.

Although the test machine is small, Daum said it could be built large enough to scan a shipping container.

The two machines were developed with funding from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, is currently analyzing them and submitting them to additional testing.

Of course, carrying cash -- even large amounts of it -- is not illegal; though there is a limit of $10,000 in cash anyone may carry in or out of the United States.

Still, intercepting large sums of money would at least put a dent in the drug trade, argued lab spokesman Ethan Huffman.

"Money is always the incentive to bring drugs across the borders," Huffman said. "If we can devise solutions to aid customs and border patrols in stopping that, then that limits it."

The third project, a relatively new device, is on loan to the INL from another agency. It looks like a typical bill counter used by banks to count stacks of cash. But on the back of the machine, an add-on box about the size of a file folder reads and stores the serial numbers of every bill it counts.

The machine is of little strategic value by itself. But if it was distributed worldwide, and if there was a database of serial numbers, it would become possible to trace money across the globe.

That worries people like Melissa Ngo of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"This is just another step toward a complete lack of anonymity," Ngo said.

"There are many reasons people wouldn't want information about where they spend their money," Ngo said. "From stopping mass marketers to people thinking it's nobody's business what books or CDs they buy."

Boston.com / Business / New invention to detect caches of cash

Tax avoidance is pushed into confrontation

By Vanessa Houlder

Is the game up for the tax avoidance industry? At a time when government revenues face myriad threats, speculating about the health of the tax avoidance industry might seem absurd.

But the aggressive schemes being dreamed up by the avoidance industry are triggering an increasingly aggressive reaction from the government. "Our objective is clear and the time has come to close this activity down permanently," said Dawn Primarolo, paymaster general in December 2004.

FT.com / Business life / Law and professions - Tax avoidance is pushed into confrontation

CIO Asia - Security Issues in the Financial Sector

A wake-up call to the financial services sector: It is time to review and rethink IT security.
By Tan Shong Ye
PWC

Security for banks is a huge issue. A day rarely passes without a press report relating to a security breach or issue. Banks are now facing increasing security threats to their people, assets and operates from diverse sources such as:-

* Terrorism
* Financial fraud, both internal and external
* Organised crime, including money laundering
* Numerous information threats (i.e. hackers and computer viruses)

The level and complexity involved in managing such a diversity of threats means that security has become a significant or an increasing cost component of doing business for banks.

How big an issue is security? Unfortunately, many organisations need to experience the significant impact of a negative security event before realising that security is a huge issue. Of course, by then it is too late.

Specifically, security is a huge issue in Asia. In The State of Information Security 2004 Worldwide Study by CIO (U.S.) magazine and PricewaterhouseCoopers released in October 2004, it was found that Asia and South America trailed North America and Europe in IT security and best practice implementation.

The study also revealed that 75 percent of Asian companies—a figure higher than any region (vs. 67 percent North America, 65 percent Europe)—had suffered downtime due to security lapse in the past one year. This was probably due to the rapid rise in IT deployment in Asia without a corresponding increase in focus on IT security management.

Banks Need Special Care
A particular and topical area is Internet banking. Many retail banks have recently suffered a wave of attacks, whereby fraudsters send out e-mails directing customers to fake websites and requesting them to enter their passwords and other details. This form of security attack, more commonly known as Phishing, has resulted in significant losses.

The main impact, however, is not in the losses but the investment of banks’ resources responding to these attacks. Banks are also concerned that fears over security are slowing the uptake of Internet banking by their customers. As a result, some banks, for example are now seriously considering rolling out stronger authentication measures to their Internet banking customers. However, this slows access, which affects ease and attractiveness of use and increases the costs in providing such services.

Banks must also comply with an increasing level of legislation relating to security. These include various anti-money laundering legislation, as well as various data privacy requirements of certain countries. Banks in Singapore should be mindful of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Internet Technology Risk Management Guidelines issued in June 2003, and the Technology Risk Management Guidelines for Financial Institutions issued in November 2002. For outsourced functions, banks need to be compliant with the confidentiality and security requirements in the newly released Guidelines on Outsourcing issued by the MAS in October 2004.

Furthermore, security and fraud-related losses form a significant component of most financial institutions’ operational loss exposures under new regulatory capital approaches being introduced by Basel II. In addition, to ensure the appropriateness of their design and operational effectiveness, there is also a need for management to reassess security controls; this is a key aspect of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance for SEC registrants.

Risk Impact
What is the best way to address security risks and how will it impact the business?

It is becoming more common for organisations to strive for a “best fit” solution, as opposed to obtaining “best practice” in every security-related matter. Conforming to a set of best practices can be an extremely expensive exercise that does not necessarily deliver business benefits equal to or greater than the resources expended to get there.

A best-fit model is, instead, about understanding what the risks are and applying the most appropriate risk mitigation strategy to reduce them, as opposed to applying best practice processes regardless of the associated risk.

Security has often been focused on the concept of exclusion (i.e. preventing unauthorised access to internal resources). However, in the banking environment where Internet-based applications are deployed by customers, employees, and other business partners, security is also about appropriate inclusion (i.e. allowing access to the right people). It is critical to strike the right balance between keeping the security risks at bay and not impacting the business so much that its competitive edge suffers.

To address these risks, banks need to address their security risks at a number of different levels:

* Get the governance right. To respond effectively and efficiently to the growing number of security threats, a coordinated response across an organisation is required.
* Integrate with wider risk management practices. To be effective, security risk analysis processes have to be integrated with an organisation’s overall risk framework. This is vital to ensure buy-in from management and the business. This also means that for banks to be accredited at the highest operational risk level available under Basel II—the Advanced Measurement Approach—the security risk management approach has to meet a number of qualitative standards in common with other elements of operational risk.
* Enable the business. Establishing robust data classification models and identity management processes and systems are key to successfully maintaining security while, at the same time, allows organisations to get closer to their customers.
* Build security awareness. Raising the awareness of security in an organisation is often a challenge but is vital for developing a strong security culture.

In conclusion, the ever-increasing threats to banks coupled with developments around risk governance, control and assessment indicate a timely need for management to rethink the way that security is viewed.

Tan Shong Ye is Partner and Head of Security & Technology Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Yukos Kingpin on Trial

Yukos Kingpin on Trial
by Lucy Komisar, Special to CorpWatch


In mid-May a Moscow court will issue a verdict in the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the figure behind Yukos Oil, who was once known as Russia's richest man. Khodorkovsky, who a few years ago was worth more than $15 billion, is on trial for fraud and tax evasion, much of it made possible through the use of offshore shell companies.

Khodorkovsky has been in prison since 2003, when he was charged with embezzlement and for rigging a privatization auction of the petrochemical company, Apatit. Some critics argue that Khodorkovsky is being held up as a symbol of Russia's ruling class of exorbitantly wealthy businessmen, and that his trial is politically motivated. Senator John McCain - in a recent statement before the Senate - likened the charges against the young oligarch to the overthrow of a government saying, "a creeping coup against the forces of democracy and market capitalism in Russia is threatening the foundation of the U.S.-Russia relationship.”

But Western corporations and, by extension, the Western media may in fact be equally motivated to obscure the facts and make Khodorkovsky into a capitalist martyr.

Born in 1963, Khodorkovsky is an attractive man who favors aviator glasses. He went to university in Moscow and received an advanced degree in chemistry. Politically active at university, he was the deputy secretary for Young Communists League of Moscow’s Frunze district. He was named head of the local technology business center under perestroika and turned a profit by reselling computers. He then used the cash he made to provide financial services to the first Russian entrepreneurs -- organized crime groups. The service changed rubles into dollars and transferred them abroad via offshore accounts.

With accumulated profits, in 1988, he set up Bank Menatep (named after the Russian acronym for Frunze's “Inter-Branch Centre for Scientific and Technological Programs”), which prospered under the patronage of Russian entrepreneurs and politicians.

Khodorkovsky hit the big time with President Boris Yeltsin’s loans-for-shares program, through which, it turned out, state assets were looted at rigged auctions for knock-down prices in exchange for “loans” the government would never repay.

Essential to his frauds was the use of offshore shell companies, artificial fronts set up in tax havens that offer corporate and bank secrecy, no or low taxes, and protection from international law enforcement or minority shareholders seeking to trace the money. While there are about 70 tax havens around the world, Khodorkovsky’s favorites included Switzerland, Gibraltar, Panama, and the Isle of Man, a British crown colony.

Apatit and Avisma

For example, in 1994, Khodorkovsky and his friends bought a 20 percent stake of Apatit, a Russian state-owned company worth $1.4 billion at the time, for a mere $225,000 and a promise to invest $283 million. When the company was put on the auction block, Khodorkovsky arranged for four of his shell companies to be the only qualified bidders in position to buy it. But after winning the bid, the investors failed to inject any money into the company and ignored a subsequent court order to return the shares. Instead they sold the stake to Menatep, which transferred it to offshore shell companies.

Company managers set up a transfer pricing scheme, selling Apatit products at low prices to their shell companies, which sold them on the world market for much more. Meanwhile, taxes and dividends were paid on the low figure. At Khodorkovsky's trial, prosecutors said this defrauded the company and shareholders of more than $200 million and the country of millions in taxes.

In 1995, Khodorkovsky was responsible for a similar scheme involving Avisma, a titanium company. Again, Menatep Bank owned the winning offshore company. Menatep then set up a transfer pricing network, meaning they used an offshore company to “buy” Avisma’s output at below-market prices and then sold it for much more, while paying virtually no taxes and reaping hidden profits, which didn't go to minority shareholders.

Yukos

All this brings us to Yukos, the oil company that was sold in more auctions rigged by Menatep. But this time, the stakes were even higher. Khodorkovsky paid $309 million for a controlling 78 percent of Yukos. The new “owners” were his offshore shell companies. Months later, Yukos traded on the Russian stock exchange at a market capitalization of $6 billion.

Spinning Khodorkovsky

In order to win positive media internationally, Khodorkovsky brought in a savvy public relations executive to chair Group Menatep's advisory board: Margery Kraus, president and chief executive of APCO Worldwide, a Washington subsidiary of Grey Advertising, one of the biggest advertising agencies in the world.

With the advice of APCO, Yukos created the Open Russia Foundation in London in 2001 with a paltry $15 million "to build cooperation between Russia and the West." Henry Kissinger joined the board of the foundation and traveled to Moscow when the U.S. Agency for International Development signed on to a joint project with the foundation to promote "Russian democracy". (Also present at this event was George Bush Senior.)

Open Russia Foundation's grants seemed aimed more at cultivating powerful friends than promoting democracy. A book of photographs of Russia by Lord Snowdon, the official photographer of the British royal family, was commissioned. The foundation also gave $100,000 to the National Book Festival, a favorite charity of Laura Bush, the wife of President George Bush.

APCO also launched a series of advertisements in March 2005 on the international and editorial pages of the New York Times website. Designed to look like a newsletter named "Russia in Focus," with no indication of sponsor or ownership, it lists a "privacy policy" and welcomes reader "submissions" but no contact information.

One edition included an attack on the Khodorkovsky prosecution co-authored by Stuart Eizenstat (incidentally a member of APCO's international advisory board) and Jonathan Winer - both former Clinton State Department officials.

APCO claims that more than 98 percent of NYTimes.com's International section front readers have visited the website www.russiainfocus.com.

In addition to the media campaign, Khodorkovsky also pumped money into powerful and influential investment funds such as the Carlyle Group, run by Frank Carlucci, Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan and a Deputy Director of the CIA during the Carter Administration.

These strategic investments have reinforced Khodorkovsky's support among U.S. government and political figures. During her recent trip to Moscow, for example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice framed the trial as a matter of "foreign investor's rights." Washington will be watching the Khodorkovsky closely, she said, "to see what [it] says about the rule of law in Russia."

Perhaps the "rule of law" and "democracy" do not include paying taxes?
At the top of the Yukos ownership structure is the holding company, Group Menatep, registered at a Gibraltar post office box. Khodorkovsky owned 28 percent of Menatep; Menatep owned Yukos Universal Limited, which owned 61 percent of Yukos. Menatep also owned the intricate web of shell companies in and outside Russia involved in the Yukos tax evasion scheme.

Yukos sold oil and petroleum products to tax haven shells which sold them on the world market. The transfer pricing cheated the government of a number of forms of taxes, totaling $1.7 billion.

Once again transfer pricing was central to Yukos marketing plans. A confidential June 1999 memo obtained by CorpWatch tells of a meeting conducted at the company’s upscale London offices by Stephen Curtis, managing director of Group Menatep, a secretive lawyer who represented a number of influential businessmen (such as Boris Berezovsky, who fled to London after Russian authorities accused him of using offshore shell companies to embezzle money from Aeroflot, the Russian airline, and to cheat on taxes owed by an auto factory).

At the meeting Curtis briefed four others, including Isle of Man shell company operator Peter Bond, about Yukos marketing. He explained that Yukos oil flowed through what they called the “Jurby Lake Structure,” (an offshore network they'd named after a lake in England) that was based on trading companies like Behles in Switzerland, South Petroleum in Liberia, and Baltic Petroleum in Ireland.

Although these companies had “stand alone” corporate structures and were thus legally separate, they often shared common offices. For example Behles, Menatep and Apatit all worked out of 46 rue du Rhone in Geneva, Switzerland.

But in early 2004 Curtis reportedly got nervous about the Yukos frauds and decided to provide information to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), which collects information about organized crime in Britain. In March 2004, on his way to meet an MI6 British intelligence agent, Curtis's new Agusta 109E helicopter crashed, killing him.

Someone close to British intelligence told Financial Times reporter Thomas
Catan, “My sense was that he was fearful of being prosecuted by the Russian authorities for being party to assisting in the capital flight, and that he thought that going to the UK authorities would give him some sort of top cover.”

Meanwhile, Yukos stock had tanked following Khodorkovsky’s arrest in October 2003, wiping out the illusory dividends, and causing U.S. investors to lose $5.7 billion. All along, however, the company’s stolen profits remained hidden in secret bank accounts for shell companies (like Behles) controlled by Khodorkovsky and partners. The following year, Swiss authorities, at Russia’s request, froze $5 billion discovered in the shell company accounts. But even this falls far short of the total back taxes, interest, and penalties owed to the Russian government, which is now estimated at $25 billion.

APCO Worldwide, the Washington public relations firm that represents Khodorkovsky, declined to comment on the transfer pricing and tax evasion system or the charges described here.

Fooling the West

Like Enron, Yukos was a darling of the Western financial press until it collapsed. Also like Enron, Yukos had impressive profits because it used secret offshore shell companies to avoid paying taxes. That worked fine under the rule of President Yeltsin, but changed in 2000 when Vladimir Putin was elected and the new government started to crack down on tax-evasion.

The laws on accounting were also made much tougher in the United States, after the Enron scandal. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act required auditors to certify a company’s internal controls using standards under a newly created Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Hundreds of companies immediately rewrote their accounts, and auditors began to question company reports much more closely.

Menatep/Yukos worked with the "big-four" global audit firms, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and KPMG, which all routinely set up offshore transfer pricing and tax-evading networks for clients.

The only apparent complaint about the bookkeeping cover-up came from Ernst & Young, the auditors for Khodorkovsky’s holding company, Group Menatep. It wrote in a July 2002 audit that the financial information it was provided did "not constitute complete financial statements of the Company prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standards.”

Investment banks and brokerages such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse First Boston, and UBS, which were making money from selling Yukos stocks, ignored the results of the Ernst & Young audit.

Khodorkovsky’s lawyers insist that the transfer pricing and other tax-evasion strategies were legal under Russian law. Peter Clateman, a lawyer with Moscow's Sputnik Group, an investment and development company, disagrees. He wrote on the internet news feed, Johnson's Russia List, that the Mentap/Yukos operation was “a clear transfer pricing scheme that was illegal in Russia, as it would be in just about any western country.”

According to Clateman, “Many press sources, however, state without further commentary that this scheme was legal in Russia during the period in which it was carried out. I do not know of any Russian lawyer who agrees with this conclusion.” As far back as 1998, the Russian government instituted statutes barring transfer pricing schemes, particularly those with the intent to minimize taxes.

The media in the West, on the other hand, seems bent on portraying Khodorkovsky as a victim of politics. Major U.S. media routinely obscure references to the man’s criminality, calling his past “murky” and the fraudulent privatizations “cut-price” and “controversial.”

In one example, a New York Times April 19 editorial called, "Justice on Trial in Russia," claimed that Khodorkovsky’s was "not a fair trial.” Meanwhile, the Times has provided no substantive detail about the actual charges or trial. Furthermore, the U.S. press has largely ignored Menatep companies’ transfer pricing, a scheme invented and popularized in the West that was the key to the Russian fraud.

Major American figures such as Condoleezza Rice (see box) and John McCain got on message.

Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, said, "We are concerned about this escalation of legal pressure being exerted on Yukos. This move will send a very negative signal to companies investing in or considering investing in Russia." Even President Bush, in his recent state-of-the-Union address, called on Russia to "stop terrorizing big business."

Cracking down on tax fraud

But, contrary to U.S. press reports, Khodorkovsky and Yukos were not singled out by Putin. Clateman points out that over the last decade “Russian authorities have overturned other such structures and demanded back taxes and penalties.” Oil major Lukoil settled a $200-million back tax claim for 2000 and 2001 for use of a similar scheme.

Several major oligarchs accused of tax evasion or other financial crimes have chosen exile over prosecution. Boris Berezovsky (Aeroflot and Logovaz) and Roman Abramovitch (Sibneft) fled to London, Vladimir Gusinsky (MOST Bank) to Spain, and Mikhail Chernoy (Trans World Group Metals) to Israel.

Today, Russian authorities have continued the crackdown on tax-evading transfer pricing schemes by companies such as Vimpel Communications, Russia’s second largest cell phone carrier, owned by Alfa Group Consortium. Additional tax charges against Vimpel were estimated at $619 million for 2001-2003, though it has reached a lower settlement on part of the claim.

Alfa, which has also been accused of using offshore networks to cheat investors and business rivals in the past, has business interests in oil and gas, banking, insurance, retail trade, telecommunications and technology. The TNK-BP oil company, in which Alfa has a stake, has been hit with a tax claim for nearly $1 billion for 2001.

Lucy Komisar is an investigative journalist writing a book on the global impact of offshore banking and corporate secrecy.

CorpWatch: Yukos Kingpin on Trial

Monday, July 25, 2005

Loophole for Britons with hidden overseas accounts

The EU is to levy a withholding tax — but you can keep your identity secret from the taxman. By Clare Francis
MOVES to make money laundering harder are about to receive a setback after an EU compromise.

A savings directive, due to be implemented in July, aims to clamp down on tax evasion. But bank customers with offshore accounts who agree to pay a withholding tax will have their identities shielded from their home tax authorities.

Mike Warburton at Grant Thornton, an accountant, said: “Anyone who is deliberately evading taxes will shift their money elsewhere — it is wrong and illegal, but there is always somewhere you can move your money to avoid tax and these people will do just that.”

Under the terms of the directive, EU states will have to hand over tax information about the income they are paying to foreign customers. Banks in other member states will have to inform the Inland Revenue about accounts held by Britons.

But Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria objected because they felt it infringed people’s privacy. As a result, they will offer customers a choice: they can either disclose their savings on their tax return or their foreign bank will levy a withholding tax that will be deducted from the interest paid. The rate will initially be 15%, rising to 20% in 2007 and 35% thereafter.

Each year, 75% of the tax collected will be paid to the relevant tax authorities as an anonymous lump sum and the collecting state will retain 25%. So if Luxembourg collected £10m in tax from all the British citizens with accounts in the principality, £7.5m would be given to the Inland Revenue — but the Revenue would not know which individuals this had come from or how much each had paid. This is said to be a temporary measure and these states are due to comply with the full directive in five years.

Graham Parrott at Ernst & Young, an accountant, said: “This enables individuals to keep their identities secret.”

Switzerland and the Channel Islands, which are not members of the EU, have agreed to similar provisions. They will apply a retention tax, basically another name for the withholding tax. So Swiss bank-account holders will continue to enjoy the sort of secrecy that for many years protected the likes of Idi Amin, the infamous dictator of Uganda, and Ferdinand Marcos, the former Philippine president, whose wife, Imelda, became famous for her shoe collection.

Simon Hull at Alliance & Leicester International said: “The Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Switzerland will apply a retention tax, and will not identify individuals. Customers will have the choice of disclosure or paying the retention tax.”

The tax is deducted automatically and customers will receive a receipt. They are then supposed to pay the remainder through their tax return — but will they do so? One attraction of offshore accounts has been that they enable people to invest funds in overseas bank accounts that they can keep secret from spouses or business partners. Under the new directive, they will still be able to do so — they just need to hold their money in one of the states that is not obliged to share information with their country of residence.

Hull does not agree that the new system will encourage people to do this. He said: “The retention tax is only a temporary measure and I believe it allows people to sort themselves out properly. The vast majority of our customers are in very transparent arrangements and we don’t expect people to change their behaviour.”

Every British resident should be paying tax on their savings, even if they are invested overseas. This should be disclosed on their tax return. For those who already do this, the new directive will have little impact.

Paul Garwood at Smith & Williamson, an accountant, said: “If you are UK-domiciled you are subject to tax on worldwide income, so the directive shouldn’t cause any problem if you have reported your savings correctly.”

However, if you have not, accountants recommend you contact your tax office and inform it of your mistake rather than waiting for the institution where you have your offshore account to notify the Revenue.

Loophole for Britons with hidden overseas accounts - Money - Times Online

EcoFin ready to give go ahead to savings directive

In Short:

A long-awaited agreement to include Switzerland, Monaco and other offshore tax havens is on the cards. If agreed, it will finally pave the way for the EU savings directive.
Brief News:

The EcoFin Council on 12 April said it was "convinced" that all will be in place for the EU Savings Directive to come into force as planned on 1 July 2005.

The directive assures that information about income from savings held by EU citizens in accounts outside their country of residence will be passed on to the citizen’s own tax authorities.

However, sanction for the measure was given on the condition that it also applied to dependent territories of member states such as the Isle of Man and Guernsey, and non-EU states Monaco, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

Concerned about protecting the confidentiality of their banking systems, some countries, including Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, will initially withhold an automatic 15% tax instead of passing on account details.

EcoFin ready to give go ahead to savings directive

US State Department on Money laudering and financial crimes in Panama

The economy of Panama is service-based and heavily weighted toward maritime transportation, commerce, tourism, banking, and financial services. Panama is a major drug-transit country. Panama’s proximity to major drug-producing countries, its sophisticated international banking sector, its US dollar-based economy, and the Colon Free Zone’s (CFZ’s) role as an originating or transshipment point for goods purchased with narcotics dollars through the Colombian Black Market Peso Exchange, make the country particularly vulnerable to money laundering. Despite significant progress to strengthen Panama’s anti-money laundering regime since October 2000, money laundering remains a serious threat to the stability of the country’s legitimate financial institutions. Panama is a destination for international narcotics-trafficking proceeds that include significant amounts of US currency or currency derived from illegal drug sales in the United States.

Panama’s large offshore financial sector includes international business companies (over 370,000 currently registered in Panama), offshore banks (approximately 31), captive insurance companies (corporate entities created and controlled by a parent company, professional association, or group of businesses), and trust companies. Transfer of negotiable (bearer) bonds is another potential vulnerability that could be exploited by money launderers. The high volume of trade occurring through the CFZ (there are approximately 2,600 businesses established in the Zone) presents opportunities for trade-based money laundering to occur.

Law No. 41 (Article 389) of October 2, 2000, amended the Penal Code by expanding the predicate offenses for money laundering beyond narcotics-trafficking, to include criminal fraud, arms trafficking, trafficking in humans, kidnapping, extortion, embezzlement, corruption of public officials, terrorism, and international theft or trafficking of motor vehicles. Law No. 41 establishes a punishment of five to 12 years imprisonment and a fine.

In December 2002, the Panamanian Legislative Assembly approved the Financial Crimes Bill (Law No. 6 of December 6, 2002), which establishes criminal penalties of up to ten years in prison and fines of up to one million dollars for financial crimes that undermine public trust in the banking system, the financial services sector, or the stock market. The penalties criminalize a wide range of activities related to financial intermediation, including the following: illicit transfers of monies, accounting fraud, insider trading, and the submission of fraudulent data to supervisory authorities. Law No. 1 of January 5, 2004, adds crimes against intellectual property as a predicate offense for money laundering.

Law No. 42 of October 2, 2000, requires financial institutions (banks, trust companies, money exchangers, credit unions, savings and loans associations, stock exchanges and brokerage firms, and investment administrators) to report to the Unidad de Analisis Financiero (UAF), Panama’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), currency transactions in excess of $10,000 and suspicious financial transactions. Law 42 also mandates that casinos, CFZ businesses, the national lottery, real estate agencies and developers, and insurance/reinsurance companies report to the UAF currency or quasi-currency transactions that exceed $10,000. Furthermore, Law 42 requires Panamanian trust companies to identify to the Superintendence of Banks the real and ultimate beneficial owners of trusts.

Executive Order 213 of October 3, 2000, amending Executive Order 16 of 1984 relating to trust operations, provides for the dissemination of information related to trusts to appropriate administrative and judicial authorities. Furthermore, in October 2000, Panama’s Superintendence of Banks issued Agreement No. 9-2000 that defines requirements that banks must follow for identification of customers, exercise of due diligence and retention of transaction records.

In 2002, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a circular to all finance companies reminding them of the transaction-reporting requirement of Law 42, and also began drafting a law to regulate the operations of pawnshops and exchange houses. It also increased the number of inspections of finance companies it conducted. The Autonomous Panamanian Cooperative Institute established a specialized unit for the supervision of loans and credit cooperatives regarding compliance with the requirements of Law 42. The National Securities Commission carried out numerous training sessions and workshops for its personnel and regulated entities. The Colon Free Zone Administration prepared and issued a procedures manual for the users of the CFZ, outlining their responsibilities regarding prevention of money laundering and requirements under Law 42. The UAF continues efforts to raise the level of compliance for reporting suspicious financial transactions, particularly by non-bank financial institutions and businesses in the CFZ. In 2004, the Stock Commission announced that it would begin investigating suspicious activity.

With support from the Inter-American Development Bank, the GOP is implementing a Program for the Improvement of the Transparency and Integrity of the Financial System. This Transparency Program is targeted, through enhanced communication and information flow, training programs, and technology, at strengthening the capabilities of those government institutions responsible for preventing and combating financial crimes and terrorist financed activities.

In 2002, the Institute of Autonomous Panamanian Cooperatives, UAF, and the US Embassy Narcotics Assistance Section cosponsored a roundtable on money laundering that offered practical training to financial institutions to assist them in meeting the reporting requirements under Law No. 42. In 2003, Panama launched an education program related to prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Panama’s Banking Association, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Panamanian Government, and the Untied States Government financed this campaign. Initiatives under this campaign include a crime analysis seminar, a regional seminar on money laundering for banking regulators, and the detection and reporting of suspicious activities for the banking sector. During 2004, the programs included training for the Gaming Control Commission and a seminar for the Hemispheric Congress on the prevention of money laundering. In 2004, more than 5,000 officials from public and private sector institutions received training through this campaign. Participants included representatives from banks, credit unions, real estate agencies, stockbrokers, insurance companies, Colon Free Trade Zone companies, financial institutions, and money order companies.

To increase GOP interagency coordination, the UAF and Panamanian Customs are developing an office at the Tocumen International Airport to expedite the entry of customs currency declaration information into the UAF’s database. This will enable the UAF to begin more timely investigations. In 2004, Panamanian Customs continued a program at Tocumen International Airport, begun in 2001, to deter currency smuggling by seizing and forfeiting all undeclared funds in excess of $10,000 from arriving passengers. Bulk cash shipments, including through Tocumen Airport, continue to be of great concern, with smugglers often under-declaring the amount of cash being brought into the country.

Executive Order No. 163 of October 3, 2000, which amended the June 1995 decree that created the UAF, also allows the UAF to provide information related to possible money laundering directly to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation. Panama has brought cases for domestic prosecution, and the UAF routinely transfers cases to the Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (UIF) for investigation. During 2004 the Financial Fraud Prosecutor’s office investigated 2,459 cases related to financial crimes, 86 of which led to a conviction. These included credit card fraud and fraud involving banking institutions.

GOP cooperation in the investigation of the Western Hemisphere’s largest Black Market Peso Exchange money laundering scheme was instrumental in the US conviction in 2002 of Yardena Hebroni, owner of Speed Joyeros, a CFZ enterprise. The GOP also revoked the Panamanian residency of Hebroni, an Israeli national, after she was ordered deported from the United States. In 2004, Panamanian officials charged former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Aleman with money laundering crimes. The GOP received cooperation in the investigation from the Government of Nicaragua. Also during 2004, there were investigations into possible money laundering crimes of high-level Costa Rican government officials. Finally, GOP investigators are looking into corruption allegations made against former government officials.

The GOP identified the combating of money laundering as one of five goals in its five-year National Drug Control Strategy issued in 2002. The Strategy commits the GOP to devote $2.3 million to anti-money laundering projects, the largest being institutional development of the UAF.

Decree No. 22 of June 2003, gave the Presidential High Level Commission against Narcotics Related Money Laundering responsibility for combating terrorist financing. Law No. 50 of July 2003 criminalizes terrorist financing and gives the UAF responsibility for prevention of this crime. There are no legal impediments to the GOP’s ability to prosecute or extradite suspected terrorists. Panama Public Force (PPF) and the judicial system have limited resources to deter terrorists, due to insufficient personnel and lack of expertise in handling complex international investigations. On January 18, 2003, the GOP entered into a border security cooperation agreement with Colombia, and also increased funds to the PPF to help secure the frontier. In response to United States efforts to identify and block terrorist-related funds, the GOP continues to monitor suspicious financial transactions.

Also, the GOP created the Department of Analysis and Study of Terrorist Activities. This department is tasked with working with the United Nations and the Organization of American States to investigate transnational issues, including money laundering. Panama has an implementation plan for compliance with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Forty Recommendations on Money Laundering and its Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing.

Panama and the United States have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that entered into force in 1995. The GOP has also assisted numerous countries needing help in strengthening their anti-money laundering programs, including Guatemala, Costa Rica, Russia, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Panama also hosted the Seventh Hemispheric Congress on the Prevention of Money Laundering in August 2003. Executive Decree No. 163 authorizes the UAF to share information with FIUs of other countries, subject to entering into a memorandum of understanding or other information exchange agreement. The UAF has signed more than 27 memoranda of understandings with FIUs, including the US FIU, FinCEN.

Panama is active in the multilateral Black Market Peso Exchange Group Directive. In March 2002, the GOP signed the cooperation agreement issued by the working group as part of a regional effort against the black market system. Panama is a member of the Organization of American States Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (OAS/CICAD), and is the current Chair of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force. Panama is also a member of the Offshore Group of Banking Supervisors, and the UAF is a member of the Egmont Group. Panama is a party to the 1988 UN Drug Convention. Panama is a signatory to 11 of the UN terrorism conventions and protocols. During 2002, the GOP became a party to the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and in 2004, of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The Government of Panama should continue its regional assistance efforts. It should also continue implementing the significant reforms it has undertaken to its anti-money laundering regime, in order to reduce the vulnerability of Panama’s financial sector and to enhance Panama’s ability to investigate and prosecute financial crime, money laundering, and potential terrorist financing. In particular, Panama should institute controls over the transfer of bearer bonds.

US State Department, Money laudering and financial crimes in Panama

Free-Market Justice Is in the Cards by J.H. Huebert

Nearly everyone takes it for granted that if government did not protect consumers from fraud, no such protection would be provided. The free market, however, protects consumers in countless ways, all without any government intervention. In fact, it does so more efficiently and effectively than the government can.

One of the most impressive examples of free-market justice involves something that might be in your pocket right now: your credit card. Through voluntary contractual arrangements – motivated by nothing more than a desire for customers and profit – credit-card companies provide an entirely private means of recourse when a merchant wrongs a customer.

Visa and MasterCard, the two most popular credit cards, are brand names jointly used by banks that have gotten together to issue the cards. Every bank that belongs to the Visa or MasterCard association can also open accounts for merchants who wish to accept the cards. The very existence of these organizations is a testament to the free market's ability to overcome the challenges of coordination to deliver to consumers the products they desire.

To understand how credit-card companies provide justice for consumers, we must first understand how an ordinary credit-card transaction works. Suppose Jones buys a camera from a merchant for $500 using his Visa card, which was issued to him by Bank A. The merchant, however, has a Visa merchant account through Bank B. How is the payment accomplished?

Today, it is most common for stores to have electronic terminals for processing credit-card transactions. So Jones would swipe his card through this terminal. When he does this, the terminal first determines that it is a Visa card, rather than one of the other cards the merchant accepts. Then information about Jones's card goes to the computers of the bank with which the merchant has his Visa merchant account, Bank B. Bank B's computers contact Visa's central computer, which looks up Jones in its system and sees that his card was issued by Bank A. Visa then transmits an inquiry to Bank A to see if Jones has sufficient credit to buy the camera. The answer to that inquiry will come back to Visa, which will pass it back to Bank B, which in turn will pass it back to the merchant. If the answer is no, because Jones does not have enough credit, he will not be able to make the purchase. If the answer is yes, he will sign the familiar slip accepting the charge to his credit card, and that will complete the sale. Today, this entire process may take as little as two seconds.

The merchant, of course, still needs to be paid. He transmits the request for payment to Bank B. That request goes through the same channels as the authorization request. The cardholder's bank pays the merchant's bank, which then pays the merchant. At that point, it is up to the cardholder's bank to collect the amount due from the cardholder.

The banks make money from this process through the "merchant discount" they charge. This is often around 2 percent. In the case of Visa, for example, 1.4 percent goes to the card issuer. This is called an "interchange fee" and is set by Visa. The remainder, 0.6 percent, goes to the merchant's bank.

When Things Go Wrong: The Government Solution

What if Jones's camera is something other than advertised? What if he was promised one type of lens and got a different, inferior one, or the camera just doesn't work? Because of the free market's incentive to satisfy customers, most stores would allow Jones to make an exchange or get his money back. But surely there are some disreputable merchants who would not do this for Jones, since they are out to make a quick buck with no concern for their long-term reputations. Thus sometimes a consumer must appeal to a third party for redress.

If Jones had paid cash for the camera, his only recourse would be to go to a government court, probably his local small-claims court. Filing a lawsuit, even in small-claims court, is costly, cumbersome, and time-consuming. In most jurisdictions, one must pay a fee just to file a suit. To have a reasonable chance of success, a defrauded consumer probably would need to hire a lawyer. If the seller he is suing is large and sophisticated, it might have superior lawyers who are experienced in fighting consumer lawsuits, perhaps often killing them quickly through procedural maneuvers and the like. Alternatively, the merchant might not show up to defend himself against small claims and the plaintiff would win. But then he would have to collect a judgment, which might be difficult to impossible. A large percentage of small-claims-court judgments are never collected at all, perhaps because the defendant is insolvent or located prohibitively far away, making the lawsuit a waste of the taxpayer's time and effort, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The cash-paying customer with a complaint may also have problems with evidence. What if he has lost his receipt? The case might come down to his word against the seller's. The customer who pays with cash or a money order is in even worse shape if he buys something from someone located in another country. If a customer located in the United States sues a foreign merchant in an American court, the court may not have jurisdiction or the ability to enforce a judgment against the seller even if the customer wins.

If the customer tries to sue in the foreign country, he will almost certainly have to be present there and will have to hire a foreign lawyer. Even if this were not a major obstacle, the foreign country's legal system might be significantly less accessible than that of the United States, even for locals, especially in developing countries. Then, of course, there are the further potential difficulties of language barriers and court bias against foreign parties, among other things. As a result, high costs make almost any consumer-fraud lawsuit across international borders prohibitively expensive.

Chargebacks: The Private Alternative

So government does provide consumers with nominal, if often useless, opportunities to pursue redress. On the other hand, credit-card companies know that no one wants to go to small-claims court. More importantly, they know that the presence of their logos on merchants' doors and in advertisements is interpreted as a seal of approval, even if not intended as such. It is not good for Visa and other brands to appear to be associated with crooks or anything unpleasant to consumers.

Thus the card companies have created their own system for pleasing consumers who have problems with credit transactions. This is called the chargeback. Under the card companies' chargeback procedures, a consumer can inform his card issuer of his dispute and the issuer will then help him settle things.

To begin chargeback proceedings, a cardholder files a complaint for free, using a form provided by the card company. (It is often included on the back of each month's billing statement.) On receiving the complaint, the card company may ask the cardholder for documentation to support his claim. If he appears to have a legitimate grievance, the bank will then initiate a chargeback against the merchant's bank – that is, the cardholder's bank will take the money back from the merchant's bank. The merchant's bank has no choice but to allow this, because each bank in each card system has contractually agreed to these recourse procedures.

The merchant will then be given an opportunity to produce evidence on his behalf. If his bank believes the transaction was valid, it will initiate a chargeback against the cardholder's bank – that is, it will take the money back from the cardholder's bank. If the dispute continues and cannot be resolved between the two banks, it will be arbitrated by the credit-card organization.

Are chargebacks better for consumers than the government's dispute-resolution system? There is no guarantee, of course, that any system of justice will reach the correct result. But consider the following advantages of the private system.

Under the chargeback regime, the procedure for an aggrieved consumer is much simpler and better. When a consumer wants to file a complaint, his card issuer is available to assist him by phone, usually toll-free, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Once he files his complaint, he does not need to hire a lawyer – his bank uses its own resources to go to bat for him and puts him on an equal footing with the merchant, regardless of how wealthy or powerful the merchant is.

The bank will be able to reach and process chargebacks against any of its merchants anywhere in the world – except in a few countries, such as France, whose governments have abolished chargebacks by law to protect merchants.

Given these advantages, and the disadvantages of the government system, what credit-card holder wouldn't prefer the nongovernmental alternative?

This goes to show that the common belief that only government can provide justice in consumer-fraud cases is false. Indeed, as we have seen, the government is an inferior provider of justice in this realm.

Subject to Court Review?

One might argue that the relationships among the banks, merchants, and cardholders are governed by contracts, and those contracts, even if they contain private-arbitration clauses, are ultimately subject to review in government courts. That is true, but not really important.

What primarily holds these arrangements together is not the threat of government intervention, but the desire of all involved to do business with one another. Cardholders want to pay with plastic, and merchants want to accept it. Thus both cardholders and merchants agree to the terms set fo