Highlights of GAO-06-376, a report to the Collected and Available Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
STATEMENT OF REASONS
The first time Senator Levin presented this Project was in 2006, after the overwhelming GAO report against the corporations and LLCs in the USA. The GAO report unveiled the true reality that the USA didn’t require the client´s identity or the beneficiary owner of legal entities. This legislation wasn’t approved then and it was later revived in 2008, 2009 and 2011 but wasn´t approved either. The main reason is the opposition of Senators from states like Delaware and Nevada, whose income depends on the sales of corporations and LLC´s abroad. Even to this date, the USA doesn´t practice or require the “Know Your Client” Policy on legal entities.
112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. ll
To ensure that persons who form corporations in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations in ways that threaten homeland security, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations, and for other purposes. Levin, Grassley Introduce Bill to Combat U.S. Corporations with Hidden OwnersTuesday, August 2, 2011 WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, this week introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act to combat acts of terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion, and other wrongdoing facilitated by U.S. corporations with hidden owners. The bill would end the practice of the 50 States forming corporations for unidentified persons, and instead require the States to obtain the identities of the persons behind the corporations. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following:
(1) Nearly 2,000,000 corporations and limited liability companies are being formed under the laws of the States each year.
(2) Very few States obtain meaningful information about the beneficial owners of the corporations and limited liability companies formed under their laws.
(3) A person forming a corporation or limited liability company within the United States typically provides less information to the State of incorporation than is needed to obtain a bank account or driver’s license and typically does not name a single beneficial owner.
(4) Terrorists and other criminals have exploited the weaknesses in State formation procedures to conceal their identities when forming corporations or limited liability companies in the United States, and have then used the newly created entities to support terrorist organizations, drug trafficking organizations, and international organized crime groups, as well as commit misconduct affecting interstate and international commerce such as trafficking in illicit drugs, illegal arms trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion, Internet-based fraud, securities fraud, financial fraud, intellectual property crimes, and acts of foreign corruption.
(5) Among those who have abused State incorporation procedures, Victor Bout, a Russian arms dealer now in United States custody on terrorism-related charges, used at least 12 companies incorporated in Texas, Florida, and Delaware to carry out his activities, and has been indicted, in part, for conspiring to sell weapons to a terrorist organization trying to kill citizens of the United States and Federal officers and employees.
(6) Law enforcement efforts to investigate corporations and limited liability companies suspected of wrongdoing that threatens homeland security have been impeded by the lack of available beneficial ownership information, as documented in reports and testimony by officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the Government Accountability Office, and others.
(7) In July 2006, a leading international antimoney laundering and anti-terrorist financing organization, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (in this section referred to as the ‘‘FATF’’), of which the United States is a member, issued a report that criticized the United States for failing to comply with a FATF standard on the need to collect beneficial ownership information and urged the United States to correct this deficiency by July 10 2008.
(8) In response to the FATF report and to strengthen measures to protect homeland security, Federal officials have repeatedly urged the States to improve their formation practices by obtaining beneficial ownership information for the corporations and limited liability companies formed under the laws of such States. But the States continue to form millions of corporations with hidden owners.
(9) Many States have established automated procedures that allow a person to form a new corporation or limited liability company within the State within 24 hours of filing an online application, without any prior review of the application by a State official. In exchange for a substantial fee, 2 States will form a corporation within 1 hour of a request.
(10) Dozens of Internet websites highlight the anonymity of beneficial owners allowed under the formation practices of some States, point to those practices as a reason to incorporate in those States, and list those States together with offshore jurisdictions as preferred locations for the formation of new corporations, essentially providing an open invitation to terrorists and other wrongdoers to form entities within the United States.
(11) In contrast to practices in the United 13 States, all 27 countries in the European Union are already required to have formation agents identify the beneficial owners of the corporations formed by those agents under the laws of those countries.
(12) To protect homeland security, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to wrongdoing by United States corporations and limited liability companies with hidden owners, protect interstate and international commerce from terrorists and other criminals misusing United States corporations and limited liability companies, strengthen law enforcement investigations of suspect corporations and limited liability companies, set minimum standards for and level the playing field among State formation practices, and bring the United States into compliance with international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing standards, Federal legislation is needed to require the States to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations and limited liability companies formed under the laws of such States. By Eduardo Morgan Jr. Colombia´s Decree President Santos- Statement OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development What is it? The Cartel Pascal Saint-Amans – Director: OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration
Note: Pascal forgot the existence of the U.S.A. and the fact that it is the world’s largest financial center. The most important note of the report “Paradoxically, the United States, which set the ball rolling with FATCA, does not want to sign up to the new OECD standard, which would require full reciprocity between countries, preferring to stick to its own law instead.” Through the administrative act 2014-62 US Federal Government indicates with which countries it has obligations to exchange information and with which ones on the list they actually exchange
Countries the USA gives information:
We are no Tax Haven 3. Our income tax is at the same level, and sometimes higher than some OECD States (example: tax on corporations in England 21% vs 25% in Panama; individuals who earn up to 11k pay no taxes; above 50k pay 15% and then up to 25%. We pay property taxes. Sales and service taxes range between 7%-10%. 4. It is untrue to say that foreign enterprises do not have substantial presence in Panama. Some of the most important Colombian companies (banks, cement factories, etc., and more than 106 regional headquarters of multinational companies operate in Panama, some very important. We also have our banking center, (no letterbox banks), the Colon Free Zone, ports, and the Panama Pacific Area where huge global companies like Caterpillar operate. 5. Panama has signed assistance agreements with many countries, including fiscal matters. We are founding members of the United Nations; we belong to the WTO and other authentic international organizations. 6. Our stock corporation system is acknowledged for its public registry and for the obligation of the registered agent (who must be an attorney) to document the identity of their clients. History shows that whoever uses a Panamanian corporation to commit a crime is identified. No one gets away. Such are the cases of presidents of Nicaragua and Costa Rica; the Peruvian, Montesinos and the Colombian, Murcia. This does not happen in England or in the United States where since 2008 they have been trying to pass the law to “know the client” but because of the opposition of some States (Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, mainly), which are in the business of selling companies. What is Panama? Conclusions “That is how I realized, because I experienced it, how great democracy is in that country and how we are sure that Trump will learn to live with it” Eduardo Morgan Jr. In 2009, on the occasion of Barack Obama’s election as president of the United States, I wrote an article titled ‘Obama’s lesson’, which I now want to replicate using Trump´s name. At the time I pointed out that Obama’s election erased a long history of racial discrimination. Now, with Trump, the ‘lesson’ to be highlighted is the reality of what makes America great: its democracy. Donald Trump is undoubtedly a man out of the ordinary: a tireless worker with a multifaceted personality, successful businessman and owner of a great fortune that is largely a product of his work and ingenuity. He is also a stellar figure in television series, where he projects his own personality. It represents the philosophy of a people that admires and venerates the success that brings with it great fortunes and where billionaires are considered as idols competing every year for the first places on the ranking lists published by the media. Donald Trump is one of those but also something more. He made the decision to enter politics to become president of his great country. His charisma led him to win the primaries of his party with the support of the people, since the Republican Party itself never supported him. He focused his campaign on those states populated by the masses that best identified with him and with enough electoral votes that would grant him the win, albeit the fact that he lost by several millions the popular vote. Not only did he defeat his Democratic rival but also he defeated the polls. Because of his authoritarian nature, he caused early concern both in his country and around the world. His anti-immigrant measures, the absolutism he wants to impose on world trade, on defense alliances, and his promises to use great military power to defeat ISIS terrorism and stop the North Korean nuclear threat have caused, and rightly so, the fear that global instability will increase. But, oh surprise! The authoritarianism of President Trump clashed head-on with what really makes the United States great: its democracy and its institutions. Not even the president, however powerful he may be, can go against the checks and balances that are the essence of the democratic system. Thus, a judge and a sheriff were able to put a stop to some president’s measures that violated laws that were under the jurisdiction of said judge or sheriff. And both the world and the United States breathed a sigh of relief that democracy would not only protect them but also the President himself. I’m sure Trump will learn the lesson and maybe he will become a good president for the United States. Let us not forget that what makes this country great is not its unequaled military power but the fundamental pillars on which its democracy is based: freedom of the press supported by its influential newspapers; great universities where talent, more than money, is the key to being admitted; excellent bureaucracy based on the ‘civil service’ that ensures the stability and competence of public employees; research centers that make it easier for Americans to win the majority of the Nobel Prizes and has allowed them to give the world great things ranging from satellite communication to the Internet, while democratizing access to communication technologies. I was a witness during the time I attended Yale University, and then as Panama’s ambassador to the United States, of what the checks and balances of this great democracy mean. The Panama Canal’s ports, Cristóbal and Balboa, were obsolete as transshipment ports so the government of President Perez Balladares decided to privatize them. Those who won the concession would make the necessary investments to meet the load and the transshipment needs, which were the most important functions they would have as auxiliaries to the geographic position and the Canal. Major port companies from Japan and Hong Kong came to the bid, including Hutchinson Wampoa, which was perhaps the most important of them all, with ports all over the world. The United States wanted Bechtel, one of its large companies, to obtain the concession and tried to convince the government to grant it directly, since it would make an offer that could not be rejected because of how advantageous it would be for Panama. Ultimately they convinced President Pérez Balladares to halt the bidding process to tend to the Bechtel proposal, which in the end the President deemed to be a mockery, thus discarding it immediately. The bidding went ahead and was won by the aforementioned Hong Kong Company. The United States’ reaction and fury (there is no other word to describe it) came swiftly. Right away the six most important senators sent a note to the director of the Federal Maritime Authority stating that they had to ‘punish’ Panama for discriminating against American interests in the bidding of the ports. They talked about how they would prevent ships bearing the Panamanian flag from reaching American ports. As expected, panic spread in Panama so the government asked me, as the ambassador, to hire a law firm to advise us on the subject. A single preliminary note from lawyers cost more than $ 5,000 and I realized that the meager Embassy budget would not allow for much more. I then sent the legal adviser to the Embassy, Alfredo Suescum, accompanied by Lili Romero, who also acted as a lawyer, to find out with the officials of the Maritime Commission what could happen to us and what remedies we would have available to mitigate the damages. Alfredo and Lili returned smiling and relaxed. I asked them how long it would take the Commission to apply the penalty. Their response: ‘Ambassador, we met with the heads of the different departments and the message is: ‘Nothing will happen to Panama. This is an internal Panamanian matter and has nothing to do with us. Do not worry about the letter from the senators. It is just politics without any significance for us. Our director is also a politician, but these things we handle internally’. This was a great lesson on the strength that democracy has in protecting officials against impositions from bosses they might have at a given time. In fact, the senators’ overblown threats deflated and besides some extreme groups’ propaganda stating that Panama was handing over the Canal to a Chinese company (they would wave the Chinese flag over the Canal in television ads), no more was spoken about the subject; there was no sanction of any kind and the Embassy saved a fortune in legal fees. So I realized, because I experienced it, how great democracy is in that country. We are sure that Trump will learn to live with it and hope that with his great dynamism it will help make the planet a little better not only for his people but also for the rest of the world. This is, without a doubt, the greatest responsibility that the world’s great powers must assume. From International Tax Trust Bloomberg BNA’s Premier International Tax offering for the news and guidance to navigate the complex tax treaty networks and business regulations. By Joe Kirwin March 8th, 2017 The U.S. is emerging as a “leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners” because of its resistance to global tax disclosure standards and the array of tax-free facilities available for non-residents, according to a European Parliament report. Released March 7—two weeks before European Union lawmakers visit Washington D.C. and Delaware to probe money laundering and tax evasion issues— the report says U.S. states such as Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Delaware are attracting money flows from around the world because of laws that permit beneficial owners of companies to remain anonymous. “The United States provides a wide array of secrecy and tax-free facilities for non-residents both at the federal level and at the level of individual states,” the report said. Built on the foundation of the Tax Management Portfolios™, Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting is a comprehensive tax research solution designed by tax practitioners for tax practitioners. An easy-to-use interface and improved search deliver the fastest and easiest access to the expert analysis, in-depth news, extensive primary source material, and full range of practitioner-developed tools only available from Bloomberg BNA. The report underlines that the U.S., unlike “virtually all of the other developed counties in the world,” hasn’t agreed to implement the OECD’s common reporting standard for the automatic exchange of bank and tax data between tax authorities. ‘Fact Finding’ U.S. VisitThe European Parliament’s Panama Papers investigative committee will visit the U.S. March 21-24 for what has been described as a fact-finding mission. The delegation will meet with counterparts in the U.S. Congress as well as with representatives of the U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and various think tanks and organizations. According to a committee document seen by Bloomberg BNA, the purpose of the visit is “to discuss with interlocutors the state of play and future perspectives for transatlantic cooperation in the fight against money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance at international, OECD and G-7/G-20 level, and both tax and beneficial ownership transparency at U.S. State level.” OECD BEPS ReformsThe report was published amid mounting concerns among EU member countries and the European Commission that the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress won’t implement the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s recommendations under its Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), a massive, two-year project to rewrite the global tax rules, and thereby will put European companies at a competitive disadvantage to U.S. companies. The hard-hitting report comes as the EU begins screening 92 countries, including the U.S., for possible inclusion on an EU tax haven blacklist, due to be finalized at the end of 2017. DelawareA key concern for the European Parliament Panama Papers committee are existing U.S. laws that continue to permit beneficial owners of companies to remain anonymous. Some rules—such as tolerance by states like Delaware or Nevada of highly secretive anonymous shell companies—”are rather the result of a race to the bottom between individual states or standards of disclosure and transparency,” the report said. Referring to Delaware in particular, the report said that the “small East Coast state ranks first in importance” in the U.S., by a wide margin, and “also serves as one of the favored places” for real estate funds. “Delaware’s advanced business statutes make it an attractive place for global investors,” the report added. EU DivideThe beneficial owners transparency issue is currently the subject of a pending revision to the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The European Parliament is pushing for standards that would require identification of anyone with 10 percent or more of a company or trust to be posted on a public registry. However, EU countries oppose the stricter rules based on, among other things, data privacy standards. The European Parliament report also noted that because U.S. banking regulation is split between the federal and state governments, “Delaware, Nevada, Florida and Wyoming—all with very strict banking confidentiality regulations—would oppose the passing of a federal law on CRS in Congress.” FATCA ComplaintsAnother issue highlighted in the report is the one-sided nature of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, as EU governments must provide the U.S. with tax and income data about U.S. citizens living within their territory, but that reporting isn’t reciprocated with information about EU citizens living in the U.S. Since the European Parliament panel began investigating the Panama Papers nearly a year ago, the FATCA issue has consistently been raised in hearings, the most recent of which took place March 6. “The fact is that money laundering takes place when money is transferred from shell companies in tax havens via countries such as Switzerland and then onto to the U.S.,” Giuseppe Marino, a professor at Bocconi University in Milan, said at a March 6 hearing on the role Swiss lawyers and banks played in setting up and facilitating shell companies revealed by the Panama Papers. “The one-sided nature of FATCA is clearly a problem.” The report is at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2017)598602. Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. By Richard W. Rahn The Washington Post
Published February 21, 2017 SUCCESS CAN BE TRACED TO THE USE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR AS OFFICIAL CURRENCY Panama City, Panama Panama has come a long way in a short time, more than doubling its per capita gross domestic product in the past decade. At the end of June 2016, it opened the new canal next to the old one that could no longer accommodate the current generation of post-Panamax ships. Panama became an independent country in 1903 when it seceded from Colombia — with the help and encouragement of the United States, which wished to build a canal across the isthmus between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finished building the canal in 1914. The 10-mile wide Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory, until a treaty that was negotiated during the Carter administration to return the canal to Panama. Some will recall that the United States invaded Panama back in 1989 to get rid of the corrupt drug-trafficking dictator, Manuel Noriega, who was threatening the canal in a way that violated the treaty that gave the canal to Panama. Panama received full sovereignty over the canal in 1999, at which time the United States removed the last of its military bases. When the Carter administration agreed to turn over the canal, there was widespread concern that the Panamanians would not be sufficiently competent to run the canal and ensure that it would remain an international waterway. The Panamanians proved their critics wrong and not only ran the canal in a highly competent fashion, but then undertook the massive and complex task of building the new canal. As can be seen in the accompanying table, Panama has by far the highest income in Central America. The question is, why has Panama done so much better than its regional competitors? The standard answer, from both government officials and business leaders I spoke with, is that Panama does not have a central bank. That is, Panama uses the U.S. dollar as it currency. As a result, it cannot “inflate” its way out of any temptation to spend far more than tax revenue. Using the dollar without a lender of last resort serves as a natural debt break and causes some spending and taxing restraint — even though both are above the growth maximizing rate.
Source: International Monetary Fund
Panama does not have currency controls, and so the use of the U.S. dollar is as free as using the same U.S. dollar in each of the U.S. states. Having the dollar as its currency gives Panama’s banking system a competitive advantage over other countries in the region, because there is no exchange-rate risk or costs of currency conversion to U.S. dollars. Despite accusations of corruption in the courts, Panama does have a reliable system of real property registration. Panama City has a spectacular skyline with many very tall, modern buildings — the Trump Tower being the tallest at 932 feet — with eye-catching designs and with many new ones under construction. The billions of dollars of investment in this real estate is tangible evidence that investors believe their real property rights are secure. Even though Panama is less rich in natural resources than most of the other countries in the region, it has been successful in using the canal to create a regional and, to some extent, even a global logistics industry. Panama has connected the Caribbean Sea with the Pacific Ocean, not only with a state-of-the-art waterway, but also with rail, air and a modern expressway where one can drive from Colon to Panama City in less than an hour. Panama has also been a leader in the creation of “free zones,” where goods and services meant for export, or re-export for logistics reasons, are exempt from taxation and some regulations. The oldest and largest of these in the Colon Free Zone of the Caribbean side of the canal. In its almost 70 years of existence, it has successively evolved in the services it offers global merchants and manufacturers. Panama received a black eye with the “Panama Papers” scandal, despite the fact they revealed that almost no wrongdoing was done in Panama. What was revealed was that individuals in a major Panamanian law firm provided some wealthy and well-known individuals from around the world advice and assistance in setting up structures and accounts in many other countries to minimize tax liabilities — most of which appears to have been perfectly legal. The real sin was revealing the hypocrisy of many of the global elite, who seem to believe that only others should pay taxes. As for Panama, the government and financial community now engage in considerable information-sharing with the U.S. and European governments — not a good place to hide dirty money. For Panama to continue to grow at high rates, it will need to do even more to combat corruption, and improve tax, spending and regulatory policies. But the Panamanians do deserve high marks for their improbable success during the last couple of decades.
Richard W. Rahn is chairman of Improbable Success Productions and on the board of the American Council for Capital Formation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/20/panama-prospers-thanks-to-us-dollar/ By SCOTT SHANE The New York Times JAN. 6, 2017
Vladimir V. Putin holds a grudge against Hillary Clinton, and the Russian intervention to damage her candidacy was the latest fusillade in a yearslong campaign. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times The intelligence agencies’ report on the Russian intervention in the American presidential election portrays it as just one piece of an old-fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign. But it was a campaign made enormously more powerful by the tools of the cyberage: private emails pilfered by hackers, an internet that reaches into most American homes, social media to promote its revelations and smear enemies. What most Americans may have seen as a one-time effort — brazen meddling by Russia in the very core of American democracy — was, the report says, only part of a long-running information war that involves not just shadowy hackers and pop-up websites, but also more conventional news outlets, including the thriving Russian television network RT. The election intervention to damage Hillary Clinton and lift Donald J. Trump was the latest fusillade in a campaign that has gone on under the radar for years. For the three agencies that produced the report — the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency — this is a heart-stopping moment: They have just told their new boss that he was elected with the vigorous, multifaceted help of an adversary, the thuggish autocrat who rules Russia. “Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him,” the report says, in unusually blunt and sweeping language. Perhaps most arresting is the assessment that Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, sees the election attack as payback — not offense, but defense. He has borne a serious grudge against Mrs. Clinton, who he believes denigrated him when she was secretary of state and encouraged the pro-democracy protests in Moscow that erupted against him in 2011. Mr. Putin, the report says, sees the hidden hand of the United States in the leaking of the Panama Papers, files stolen from a law firm that exposed the wealth of his closest associates, secreted in offshore accounts. He even blames the United States for the exposure — carried out mainly by international sports authorities — of Russian athletes for their widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs. “From the Russian perspective, this is punching back,” said Christopher Porter, a former C.I.A. officer who now studies cyberattacks at the firm FireEye. “We may not think that’s fair or justified, but that’s the way they see it.” Mr. Porter said Mr. Putin had made no secret of his view that the United States, by promoting democracy in countries like Ukraine and Georgia, had interfered in Russia’s backyard and was trying to undermine its power. What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission: Mr. Trump has been expressing skepticism for months that Russia was to blame, variously wondering whether it might have been China, or a 400-pound guy, or a guy from New Jersey. There is only a whisper of dissent in the report — the eavesdroppers of the N.S.A. believe with only “moderate confidence” that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump, while their colleagues at the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have “high confidence.” While most of Congress and much of the public appears to accept the agencies’ findings, Mr. Trump’s prominent doubts, accompanied at times by scorn for the agencies’ competence, has rallied a diverse array of skeptics on the right and the left. Under the circumstances, many in Washington expected the agencies to make a strong public case to erase any uncertainty. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to “trust us.” There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery. At the top of every page of the report is a disclaimer that acknowledges what is missing: “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment, but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.” It offers an obvious reason for leaving out the details, declaring that including “the precise bases for its assessments” would “reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.” The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises on Thursday from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that he would “push the envelope” to try to make more information public. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Obama had directed officials to “make as much of it public as they possibly can.” That will not be enough for many, as the initial reaction showed. While some welcomed the scope of the report, many others were disappointed. “This is big: CIA, NSA & FBI publish perhaps the most high-profile intelligence community assessment in US history,” Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College London and an expert on cyberwarfare, wrote on Twitter. But Susan Hennessey, a former intelligence agency lawyer who is now the managing editor of the online journal Lawfare, wrote: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” Though the unclassified report is 25 pages long, counting the covers and several blank pages, the core analysis runs just five pages. That is less than the seven-page “annex” devoted to RT America, the television network. It is a description of the broadcaster from an intelligence report written in 2012, years before the election-related hacking took place. The agencies “have taken an all-source look at the broader Russian strategy,” said Mr. Porter, the former C.I.A. officer. The detailed description of RT’s tactics, though years old, he added, was included because they fit that strategy. Mr. Trump may have been persuaded by his classified briefing on Friday on the Russian attack, which included everything that the unclassified report leaves out, even if the statement he issued afterward seemed lukewarm. But this report is unlikely to change the minds of skeptics who, like the president-elect, remember the intelligence agencies’ faulty assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and fear being misled again. A version of this news analysis appears in print on January 7, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Ploy Was Not a One-Off. httpss://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html?_r=0 By Ben Schumann Date: January 23th, 2017 A Study Commissioned By The Greens/Efa Group In The European Parliament
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ICIJ merged information from these three leaks into one publicly available dataset called the Offshore Leaks database. Green / EFA Members of the European Parliament inquiry committee on the Panama Papers (PANA committee) decided to have a look at this information to find out more about the intermediaries between wealthy clients and corporate service providers like Mossack Fonseca, which create and manage offshore business on demand.
Despite the limitations of the database, section 1 of the report provides interesting results in terms of geographical allocation of intermediaries: Section 2 of the report looks in more detail at who these intermediaries are. We have compiled a list of 140 international intermediaries (active in at least three different countries) from large banks to the famous “Big 4” accounting companies but also other intermediaries, less known to the wider public. Members of the European Parliament inquiry on the Panama Papers are invited to use the findings of this report for the final committee conclusions expected in 2017. DISCLAIMER See the rest of the document at https://www.greens-efa.eu/files/doc/docs/d6bd745c6d08df3856eb6d49ebd9fe58.pdf
HANDELSBLATT GLOBAL
Published on31. January 2017
The European Union has placed the United States on a draft list of countries viewed as potential tax havens. Finance ministers will be writing the Trump administration this week. The European Commission views the United States as a potential tax haven, according to a draft list of 90 countries that Brussels views as problematic. Countries on the list, obtained by Handelsblatt, are categorized based on three risk factors – transparency of the tax system, tax advantages for corporations and a zero-percent income tax. Brussels views the United States as fulfilling the first two risk factors, putting Washington in the same category as Brazil, Panama, Singapore and Malaysia. The E.U. council of finance ministers plans to write the 90 countries on the list this week to start a dialogue about tax policy. That letter will go to the Trump administration as well. The council plans to decide on a finalized list by the end of the year. Four other developed nations will also receive a letter from the E.U. finance ministers – Japan, Norway, Australia and Canada. But they are not considered at risk of becoming tax havens. httpss://global-admin.handelsblatt.com/politics/e-u-may-declare-u-s-a-tax-haven-694950 January 20th, 017
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2024 Eduardo Morgan Jr. - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||||||||||||||||
