Very money. So offshore. Much corrupt.
NPR's bit on it this morning really left a lot to be desired.
I wish I had the mental energy to get into this right now. It looks like it should be so much fun.
Something about Cameron's dad mentioned on news at 6.
:popcorn:
The PM of Iceland seems to have been involved in some really shady business:
Quote from: http://grapevine.is/news/2016/04/04/conflict-of-interest-what-did-the-prime-minister-of-iceland-do/
1. Sigmundur Davið and his wife started an offshore company in 2007 which had bonds in three Icelandic Banks: Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir. *Owning bonds means you are lending money to the bank, which makes the Prime Minister and his wife "creditors" or lenders to the bank.
2. In 2008, the economic crash happened. Those three banks go into insolvency–meaning they collapsed and had to start paying off their debts as best they could–starting with people's savings and then bonds.
3. In 2009, Sigmundur Davið became the chairman for the Progressive Party and was elected into parliament in April of 2009. New transparency laws stated that Members of Parliament had to reveal any shareholding in a company that was over 25%. At that time Sigmundur Davið was still 50% owner of Wintris inc. with his wife owning the other 50%.
4. On December 31, 2009, Sigmundur Davið sold his wife his half of the company for $1 USD.
5. After the crash in 2008, creditors who took their money out of Iceland were charged a 39% "stability tax."
6. Last year, in 2015, Sigmundur Davið's government removed the 39% "stability tax" in favour of a deal which only asked for a "stability contribution,"effectively removing 2 billion Euros that would have gone to the state, but now goes to creditors: Wintris inc., his wife's company, Wintris inc., being one of those creditors.
And here's how he first reacted when confronted with it in an interview. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/716751158937686018) :lulz:
Reports of more than 20000 (though I've also read 8000, but still impressive for a country with 330000 inhabitants) protesting in Iceland today. demanding new elections. And who has been leading the polls for months already? The Pirate Party. This could get really exciting.
Posting mainly to ensure I follow the coming fun.
So, who else is shocked by all this so far? I'm fucking not. Well, in one way I am: I thought the UK would have been a larger contributor. Also, has anyone seen much relating to Indian involvement yet? I'm guessing that's a sizeable chunk too but I've not seen anything specific yet.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/apr/03/icelands-prime-minister-walks-out-of-interview-over-tax-haven-question-video
More on Iceland. This is a masterclass in "how to fail to handle the press". They weren't even going that hard at him and he fucks it up completely and bails.
That was painful to watch. He would have been better off not giving an interview at all till he knew what he was going to say.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-briton-set-up-firm-allegedly-used-by-north-korea-weapons-sales
QuoteA British banker who spent two decades living in communist North Korea set up a secret offshore finance company allegedly used by the Pyongyang regime to help sell arms and expand its nuclear weapons programme.
This shit is going to be hilarious in a few days.
Edit to add:
QuoteThe Panama Papers reveal Mossack Fonseca failed to notice Cowie's companies were linked to North Korea – even though he gave an address there.
The level of due dilligence ignored here is impressive.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 04, 2016, 09:54:04 PM
Something about Cameron's dad mentioned on news at 6.
:popcorn:
Naturally, that's just the start:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/tory-donors-links-to-offshore-firms-revealed-in-leaked-panama-papers
It get funnier. My favourite so far is:
QuoteArron Banks
Banks, who has given Ukip more than £1m and is spearheading the anti-EU referendum campaign, appears as the shareholder of a BVI company called PRI Holdings Limited. Shares from PRI were also transferred to Elizabeth Bilney, the chief executive of Leave.eu. PRI Holdings is in turn the sole shareholder of African Strategic Resources Limited, which is a British Virgin Islands company managed in Gibraltar.
Banks declined to comment.
Oh, there are levels of hilarity here that could topple governments.
In fact, it's almost too good. UBS, Credit Suisse, HSBC and a couple of other private Swiss banking outfits no-one has ever heard of have been caught red-handed creating legal entities for the purposes of tax evasion, going by a cursory reading of the files.
On top of elected officials and current/former heads of state, the information also includes members of the civil service, here and in Europe.
What really clinches this for me, aside from the civil service information, is the vast amount of information on the UK. UK banks use British Carribbean territories as tax havens for work of a dubious legality, and while everyone focuses on the Cayman Islands etc, what they always conveniently forget is how those cash transfers almost invariably end up in the City of London.
Somewhat related article mainly posting as it will give a fair idea of the likely reactions of governments:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/04/failing-to-provide-the-resources-hmrc-needs-to-tackle-tax-abuse-is-in-itself-a-form-of-corruption/
In short, acknowledge a problem then cripple any kind of investigation or reform. Cameron will do fuck all about this, it'll be amusing to see the coming proposals of others. I doubt many will even state the extent of the problem openly.
QuoteFirst, it is admitted that HMRC did not run this campaign well.
Second, it is admitted that was because they did not give the campaign the required coverage, which must be down to resources.
Third, it is now admitted that HMRC cannot in any event work the additional cases that the disclosure is giving rise to because they do not have the resources to do so.
And fourth, the message is that very clearly we'd rather lose more than £700 million than invest to beat criminal activity. After all, why worry about beating crime when cuts imposed on people with disability can pick up the slack whilst the dogma of cuts can be kept intact?
The result of this is however all too obvious: all the other announcements on tax abuse will fail for exactly the same reason unless HMRC is given the resources it needs to do its job. But there is no sign that will happen. And so the crooks win, and those in need in this country will lose, yet again.
The other thing that makes me think this was done by someone who knew what they were doing is that it circumvented Assange and Wikileaks. Whatever your opinion of him, the fact he's on the Russian government's payroll, by way of Russa Today, and that this information quite clearly indicates close friends of Putin are laundering billions, does represent a conflict of interest.
The person who leaked the information also suggested their life was being threatened. I'd like to know more about that.
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2016, 11:59:11 PM
Oh, there are levels of hilarity here that could topple governments.
In fact, it's almost too good. UBS, Credit Suisse, HSBC and a couple of other private Swiss banking outfits no-one has ever heard of have been caught red-handed creating legal entities for the purposes of tax evasion, going by a cursory reading of the files.
On top of elected officials and current/former heads of state, the information also includes members of the civil service, here and in Europe.
What really clinches this for me, aside from the civil service information, is the vast amount of information on the UK. UK banks use British Carribbean territories as tax havens for work of a dubious legality, and while everyone focuses on the Cayman Islands etc, what they always conveniently forget is how those cash transfers almost invariably end up in the City of London.
Indeed, or the related fuckery with the channel islands and such noted above.
What's going to be funny as hell is the bullshit that the various leadership candidates are going to have to spew now. This has fucked most of their planned PR to bits now. How could you possibly talk about anything austerity related in the aftermath of this crap? But they will both likely have to do so anyway.
Here's hoping the public remember treat them with the kindness they clearly deserve.
Quote from: Cain on April 05, 2016, 12:04:57 AM
The other thing that makes me think this was done by someone who knew what they were doing is that it circumvented Assange and Wikileaks. Whatever your opinion of him, the fact he's on the Russian government's payroll, by way of Russa Today, and that this information quite clearly indicates close friends of Putin are laundering billions, does represent a conflict of interest.
The person who leaked the information also suggested their life was being threatened. I'd like to know more about that.
As would I, I would think it's probably being threatened by multiple parties at this point. It's rather hard to pick a likely suspect given the potential list but it would make me smile to have the police talk to the lot as possible persons of interest in the matter.
What's your gut feeling to criminal charges? I'm hoping for many but I'm not counting on it. Those who have given comments so far have stuck to the "reported everything relevant to relevant authorities" line which is most certainty written by lawyers. I'd guess that those with no comments are still finding appropriate counsel.
Also, just calling links to both Trump and Clinton (and probably Sanders too, why not?) within the next 72 hours.
It just feels inevitable.
Americans seem conspiciously absent from the data thus far.
That said, if any of the three was going to show up, it would most likely be Clinton, given the Clinton Foundation has already been investigated for dodgy donations and deals, with some of the countries who have featured heavily in the files.
Fair point, but I still won't raise an eyebrow at either, it's only worth speculating which is going to be linked first. Given Trumps questionable choices over the years I'd be stunned if there wasn't a highly suspicious link to him.
It seems only fair to speculate on which Labour MP's are going to be linked too now some of the tories are named. I'm guessing that Blair and other new labour figures will crop up soon enough too.
Oh I can tell you right now, Blair took blood money from Kazakhstan's dictator. Literal blood money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanaozen_massacre).
Ah the Blair we all know and loathe.
QuoteTony Blair gave damage-limitation advice to Nazarbayev and helped him craft a response which was later delivered before Western media
Did you ever see the Mark Thomas stunt where they posed as PR men to repressive dictatorships? I'm pretty sure he'll have ripped off half the response from that. Looking for it now, but if it mentions amnesty international being biased and other similar things I may loose a kidney laughing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35965855
QuoteThe government should consider imposing "direct rule" on British overseas territories and dependencies if they do not comply with UK tax law, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has said.
A huge data leak from Panama-based Mossack Fonseca showed the law firm registered more than 100,000 secret firms to the British Virgin Islands.
Mr Corbyn said their governments must understand the "anger" of Britons.
QuoteReaction around the world includes:
Crowds gathering outside Iceland's parliament demanding Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson step down over allegations he concealed investments in an offshore company
Close relatives of seven current or former Chinese leaders have been found to have links to offshore firms
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is investigating more than 800 individual taxpayers, all residents of Australia
The US Department of Justice is reviewing the leaked documents to look for evidence of corruption that could be prosecuted in the US, the Wall Street Journal reports
France and Spain are investigating money laundering exposed by the leaks among their resident taxpayers
Panama President Juan Carlos Varela has said his government has "zero tolerance" for illicit financial activities and would co-operate vigorously with any judicial investigation in any country
QuoteA number of British overseas territories and Crown dependencies are named in the files raising the question of what the UK can do about them.
These are self-governing territories which rely on the UK for international relations and defence, but their autonomy can be removed, as in the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The UK government imposed direct rule on the Caribbean islands for three years after evidence was found of widespread corruption among the ruling elite.
It was only after the Turks and Caicos government implemented rules around sharing tax information that home rule was restored in 2012.
QuoteFormer Business Secretary Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat, said: "We can't send gunboats these days but we can take the small territories under direct rule."
This is going to get hilarious:
QuoteIn 2013, Mr Cameron was quoted as saying: "I do not think it is fair any longer to refer to any of the overseas territories or Crown dependencies as tax havens - they have taken action to make sure that they have fair and open tax systems."
QuoteDominic Grieve, former Conservative attorney general, said removing self governance in overseas territories was a "bit of a nuclear option" and the consequences on the people and their economy needed careful consideration.
If havens in overseas territories were shut down, people would go elsewhere where there might be far fewer regulations which would encourage the money laundering and criminality we want to suppress
That is practically the exact same argument used by the arms trade: If I didn't do it, someone worse might.
Given that the issue needs dramatic and radical revisions, I would have thought the nuclear option to be preferable. Sometimes it's easier to build a properly working system when you just destroy and remove the existing one.
In other news, shares in industrial shredding companies are up.
Iceland is a mess today. Apparently the PM tried to blackmail his coalition partners into supporting him by threatening to call new elections. That didn't work, so he asked the President to call new elections, but the president refused. He did all this without consulting his own party, and now he has resigned, or his party has forced him to. It seems like the government is trying to go on like before only with a new PM. More protests tonight.
Discussion censored in China apparently.
What a shock.
Also this, note the language used:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35970340
QuoteHSBC, Credit Suisse and the Royal Bank of Scotland-owned Coutts Trustees all feature in the leaked Panama Papers.
Firstly, obviously HSBC are in there, top billing. We know some of their favoured wealthy client base well.
QuoteThe Panama Papers leak has revealed that more than 500 banks, including their subsidiaries and branches, registered nearly 15,600 shell companies with Mossack Fonseca.
Credit Suisse chief executive Tidjane Thiam said: "We do not condone structures for tax avoidance. Whenever there is a structure with a third party beneficiary we insist to know the identity of that beneficiary."
He added: "We as a company, as a bank only encourage the use of structures when there is a legitimate economic purpose."
What a wonderful phrase. You could twist that to mean practically anything. This must be a wonderful time to be a corporate lawyer.
Hey Cain, assuming the BVI/Caymans and other UK related crap actually finally becomes toxic enough to avoid, who's you're favourite for taking over the bulk of the client base? I've got £1 on Nigeria and Sealand and £20 on Luxembourg.
roflcopters engaged (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/world/europe/panama-papers-iceland.html?_r=0)
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 05, 2016, 08:39:02 PM
Hey Cain, assuming the BVI/Caymans and other UK related crap actually finally becomes toxic enough to avoid, who's you're favourite for taking over the bulk of the client base? I've got £1 on Nigeria and Sealand and £20 on Luxembourg.
Delaware.
It's where most of the Americans absent from this list are already doing their dirty business.
Ah, will have to look into that more. Thanks.
Today's rotten meat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35977340
QuoteChancellor George Osborne said the government had done more than any previous government to tackle tax evasion and avoidance and to "make sure people pay the taxes that are owed".
Asked whether he himself had benefitted from an offshore fund, Mr Osborne said: "All of our interests as ministers and MPs are declared in the register of members' interests. We've made our position very clear."
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
This is a very long winded way to say "Yes, Fuck you."
For those inclined, here's the current register, such as it is:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/160321/160321.pdf
Its 550+ Pages of badly laid out crap. However, as always with these things, a quick CTRL+F for particular words always get some amusement. "Bahrain" comes up quite a bit, for example. "Panama" not at all.
It's also a chuckle to see who's throwing money at who:
For example:
QuoteName of donor: Max Mosley
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £12,500 in support of
my campaign for deputy leadership of the Labour Party
Date received: 29 August 2015
Date accepted: 29 August 2015
Donor status: individual
(Registered 17 September 2015)
Name of donor: Max Mosley
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: donation of printing,
with a value of £27,554.06, in support of my campaign for deputy leadership of
the Labour Party
Date received: 29 August 2015
Date accepted: 29 August 2015
Donor status: individual
(Registered 17 September 2015)
To Tom Watson.
But yes, an expected excuse claiming that nothing is wrong, everything is as good as it can be. Unsurprisingly this has led to much reaction yet around the fact that MP's can have multiple jobs, charge highly questionable rates and receive "Goods, gifts and services in kind" of some remarkable values.
Literally scanned and stopped at random:
QuoteName of donor: Service Employees International Union
Address of donor: 1800 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 200036
Amount of donation (or estimate of the probable value): flights and
accommodation; £1,722
Destination of visit: San Paulo, Brazil
Date of visit: 15-22 August 2015
Purpose of visit: UK delegate for Fast Food Rights Campaign.
(Registered 17 September 2015)
£1700? For Flights and accommodation for week? Firstly, I'm sure there's a UK ambassador in Brazil that could have made it over for the week. Secondly, this is a shitty campaign as I've never heard of it and it apparently is spending money of flying random people to Brazil. I wonder what else it's doing?
https://fastfoodrights.wordpress.com/
Closest I can find to an official site that isn't a facebook page. Got to keep those costs down I suppose. So what did they have to say about what went on in brazil for a week?
Err, Fuck all. Literally nothing. I Hope they asked Dawn Butler for a refund. Ah Well, at least she probably mentioned it herself on her own website, right?
http://www.dawnbutler.org.uk/news?page=4
No.
I've not trawled through anywhere else but I doubt there's much of a record considering she's not bothered with her own site.
I have no particular axe to grind against Butler, on the face of things she should be the kind of MP you want more of. The problem you always get with this shit is transparency. Possibly innocent things look remarkably suspicious very quickly with little effort. It doesn't help when you keep not seeing any reference to the activities undertaken. It looks a little shady, like someone got their flights paid for a jolly to Brazil for a week and kept it largely on the QT. I'm reluctantly forced to think that when you can raise a shitload of questions around one random entry, how many are actually just blatant lies? More than a few will be playing the odds and certainly some will be thinking that they won't be caught out twice over expenses so it's worth a punt. After all, it wasn't really that bad the last round anyway.
In conclusion, I again propose hanging the lot and passing total control of the Nation to my benevolent dictatorship. It's the only thing that makes sense.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry
Quoterms dealers and oligarchs
The Eye identified £170bn worth of properties acquired by offshore companies in just ten years. As most transactions did not give values, however, the total is likely to be well over £200bn. It highlighted their use by property developers such as the Candy brothers to avoid tax, the landed gentry like Lord Rothermere to escape inheritance tax and any number of arms dealers and oligarchs covering up properties they'd rather nobody knew too much about.
Among the properties were 20,590 acquired by companies registered in Jersey, 12,061 in the Isle of Man, 11,536 in Guernsey, 2,782 in Mauritius, 2,657 in Gibraltar, 1,963 in Panama and 1,245 in the Cayman Islands. But the most popular location for registering a property company offshore, with 22,155 in the period, was that convenient financial centre of... the British Virgin Islands.
While Jersey has been most commonly linked by criminal investigators to money-laundering cases, this is only because of the closer links with the authorities there. The BVI, where the identities of companies' owners are not filed with the authorities, is a tougher nut to crack. (A recent Freedom of Information request by Christian Aid for the Serious Fraud Office's risk assessment for the BVI was refused on the less than reassuring grounds that releasing it would harm relations with the territory).
It may be worth noting here that a Risk Assessment is a legal document in the UK. Potential liabilities ahoy.
Mossack have now grabbed a PR/damage limitation gang in:
http://mossfonmedia.com/
That's filled with some impressive lies and bullshit. Lots of wheedling too.
QuoteWe would like to provide you with our case by case responses to reports that have surfaced in the media.
Please realize that Mossack Fonseca has never been sued or accused of wrongdoing by any court in the world—we have only responded to requests for information in specific cases
No mention of UK crap. No mention of Iceland PM. Multiple mentions of "40 years with no criminal charges". No mention of the difficulties you would actually have in bringing said charges due to the nature and locations of their operation. Looking at the responses they've supplied these are clearly been vetted through lawyers so this should be worth watching.
Quote
So What Do We Actually Do?
Mossack Fonseca helps companies incorporate and provides registered agent services for our clients (e.g., lawyers, banks, and trusts). The registered agent function is a well-established service offering in our industry, and exists in jurisdictions around the world -- including the United States and United Kingdom.
Under Panamanian law, newly formed corporations must have a resident agent, and that agent must be a lawyer or law firm that's based in Panama. The role of the resident agent is limited to the preparation and filing of documents to be recorded at the Public Registry. The resident agent is not involved in managing the business in any way.
There's another 2 paragraphs after that that still make absolutely no attempt to explain what they actually do. When it takes you 4+ paragraphs to say fuck all, whatever you are doing is fucking shady. It's really that simple.
The "media statement" is another heap of shit.
Quote(h) Backdated Documents: The issuance of documents with a retroactive date is a well-founded and
accepted practice when the decisions made with regard to the particular document are recorded in
resolutions approved before or when the transaction in particular has taken place and the formalization is
still pending. Such practice is common in our industry and its aim is not to cover up or hide unlawful
acts.
"It's OK when everyone does it, right?". Err, no. In most industries, if you issue a document with legal ramifications, then need to alter it or change it in any significant way, you revise it, redate it and indicate somewhere that this is not the original document. REV B/2/II, whatever. You differentiate the document because it has potential legal consequences. And we're talking about people here who can spare a few quid for admin. There's really no excuse for this because the lack of an audit trail indicates shenanigans.
That last line is a fucking killer. While it may be "well founded and accepted practice" it looks and sounds (and most likely IS) easily able to be turned towards deceptive and unlawful acts. The other consistent thing in the statement is the recurving concept of "elsewhere". "We did no wrong, look to others. We complied with these tough Panamanian laws. Not our fault, must be someone else's problem." Even taking them at their word here and this isn't their aim, what is the purpose?
Also, I was discussing potential celebrity appearances last night. Officially taking bets.
I've got a tenner on Bono.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-reveal-offshore-dealings-stars
QuoteThe documents reveal a degree of chaos around the Duchess of York's finances. Letters between Mossack Fonseca and Sarah Ferguson's solicitors show the advisers of Prince Andrew's former wife trying to make sense of her assets. The complex arrangements around Essar Company Inc, which was set up in the British Virgin Islands in May 2000, show some of the issues created by managing money offshore......
The duchess has recently announced plans to move to Verbier and applied to become a resident of Switzerland.
A spokesman for the duchess said: "Essar Company Inc was formed by the partners who were to develop the business opportunities with the duchess. Had any of the intellectual property generated income or gains or other profits, it would have been disclosed by the duchess as part of her normal tax filings." The spokesman said the duchess always disclosed all sources of income in her tax returns.
QuoteThe actor has owned at least six offshore companies, also based in the BVI. The holdings included companies called Jumbo Jaz Investment, Jackie Chan Ltd and Dragon Stream Ltd. The veteran Hong Kong actor has featured in 150 films. Chan was not available for comment.
QuoteThe US government warned Fischer that he could face a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. At a press conference in the run-up to the rematch, Fischer defiantly announced that he had not paid any taxes since 1976. He was indicted and never returned to the US.
In March 2005, Iceland granted him citizenship. He died there in 2008, three months after being given power of attorney over Kettering Consultants. The company was "owned" by four bearer shareholders, which gave it an extra degree of secrecy. The company was shut down in 2012.
Got to say, Bobby Fischer was a little surprising.
QuoteMargaret Thatcher's son is listed as the beneficiary of a trust that is the ultimate owner of a house in Barbados. A complex sequence of companies shield his ownership of the property, where his family spend time every year. The trust, which is managed by a Guernsey-based offshore specialist called Harbour Trust, owns a BVI company called Calva Holdings Limited. Calva, in turn, owns another BVI company, which owns the Barbados property. The trust is furnished with nominee shareholders.
In a message to Mossack Fonseca's compliance department, the managers said: "This trust structure has been part of a very longstanding relationship with Harbour and we are extremely careful to maintain client confidentiality which I am sure you will appreciate and similarly maintain."
Thatcher was unavailable for comment.
Well, Obviously. I didn't even take bets on that one.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2016, 02:33:52 PM
I've got a tenner on Bono.
Nah bono is openly using the Irish/Dutch Sandwich Tax mitigation thing that drives everyone crazy, which means he legally pays 0 Tax.
Which is worse really, but until the loophole is closed there's nothing shady about it
Quote from: Faust on April 07, 2016, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2016, 02:33:52 PM
I've got a tenner on Bono.
Nah bono is openly using the Irish/Dutch Sandwich Tax mitigation thing that drives everyone crazy, which means he legally pays 0 Tax.
Which is worse really, but until the loophole is closed there's nothing shady about it
I did actually know about this and I STILL put a tenner on Bono.
He's a greedy little fucker and I wouldn't put it past him. Geldof will be in there too, just watch.
Hidden camera footage from Mossack offices:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpjX4q5ZWQc
And Cameron's coughed. More to come, surely.
I don't see Cameron lasting to 2020 at this rate, except perhaps through inertia.
Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2016, 01:02:41 AM
I don't see Cameron lasting to 2020 at this rate, except perhaps through inertia.
Do you think this will have a lasting effect on Cameron/any of the other figures listed?
They all seem to be using the 'Well it is technically legal' line. I see it being forgotten pretty quickly by most people as soon as someone blows something else up.
I haven't been following all that closely though so would like to hear your analysis.
Quote from: Cain on April 08, 2016, 01:02:41 AM
I don't see Cameron lasting to 2020 at this rate, except perhaps through inertia.
I'd be amazed. He must be sleeping to the sounds of knives being sharpened. The only question for me is who's going to stab him first. The crappy excuses continue with things such as "Protecting his Father". Hopefully that will seal his fate as UK politicians have been "protecting" people who really don't fucking deserve it for far too fucking long. It also reeks of trying to find a more palatable lie. Not a particularly inventive one, either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35994283
QuoteOn Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale.
So that's likely to be a figure of around £0, I'm guessing. - Edit to add - Or almost to the pence the exact limit he can claim tax free. I'd have a fiver on £30,001+ causing a hefty tax bill because reasons.
QuoteAsked on Monday whether she could confirm that no family money was still invested in the fund, Mr Cameron's spokeswoman said: "That is a private matter"
Then in an interview on Tuesday, Mr Cameron said: " I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description"
Downing Street issued a statement later that day: "To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father's land, which she declares on her tax return"
No 10 then released a further clarifying statement on Wednesday, saying: "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future"
On Thursday the PM told ITV News: "We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010"
Some of the defenders of his behaviour/statements are approaching deluded. I'm sure you're all surprised to know that many MP's don't seem to consider this bullshit an issue. There's a chap in a video in the link above that gets told directly he's conflating two obviously separate issues about 3/4 times in less than 2 minutes. He then seems to either not understand what that means or blatantly ignores it while proceeding to do the same again.
Other nonsense includes claims such as "Cameron will publish Tax return". I trust people will realise that this is worthless without also seeing his wife's and other connected family members and friends. Clarkson's is probably interesting, for example. As would be Rebekah Brooks and others of the Murdoch mob.
"Have you had enough time to burn/shred/delete and nuke everything yet?"
"Oh Yes, we did that when this broke. As it states in our T+C's, we're not responsible for your records in any way."
"Oh. Good. Well, you know what we have to do now?"
"Yes, indeed, how does wednesday suit you?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36032325
Mossack offices raided.
QuoteProsecutors said the operation had been carried out at the offices of Mossack Fonseca in Panama City "without incident or interference".
Taking all bets.
Should the Brazil situation be in this thread? Fits the theme but I'm not seeing much information in general yet to say it's definitely related.
Either way, Brazil's having more fun than they really wanted. Good times.
Edit to add - Yes it is related. Huge corruption in Brazilian Government, impeachment proceedings ongoing. Mossack had a hand in at least 57 out of a suspected 107 corrupt firms.
For anyone keeping score, 2.
Wow:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36069477
Quotehe BBC's Wyre Davis in Brazil says Ms Rousseff is an unpopular leader in a country facing a severe economic crisis.
But her supporters say many of the congressmen who are sitting in judgement have been accused of crimes too
If she is impeached, Vice-President Michel Temer would take over as interim president but he is also facing impeachment proceedings over the same allegations as Ms Rousseff
Lower house speaker Eduardo Cunha - second in line to replace her - is being investigated over allegations of taking multi-million-dollar bribes
Next in line to replace her is Renan Calheiros, head of the Senate. But he, too, is under investigation in connection with a massive corruption scandal at state-oil company Petrobras
I'm actually impressed.
To be fair, this was going on long before the Panama Papers were leaked.
So it seems, i'm just woefully under-informed these days.
It does seem that information from the leak has helped things along considerably.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36076737
QuoteShe said that she had not committed any actions which warranted her impeachment.
She argued that presidents who had preceded her had engaged in fiscal manoeuvres similar to those she is accused of and no one had ever found fault with it.
The president said that the moves to impeach her were a power grab by those who did not have the votes to get the top job democratically.
Referring to her youth as a left-wing activist fighting Brazil's military rule, she said: "I spent my youth confronting the dictatorship, now I'm confronting a coup d'etat."
Again, interesting language use. Clearly better PR people than Iceland's PM had access to.
Additionally, the "responses" here:
http://mossfonmedia.com/
They've really pulled their weight. When I first posted it, there was only five.
Now though, they've sweated and worked through the night to bring the grand total to....... 6.
Number 6? Brazil.
There's also this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-lawyer-ramon-fonseca-2016-4?IR=T
The main thing I saw there was the claim of hacking and not a leak. That will be interesting to see develop, everything else I've read about this so far seems to indicate the total opposite.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 19, 2016, 09:39:28 AM
Additionally, the "responses" here:
http://mossfonmedia.com/
They've really pulled their weight. When I first posted it, there was only five.
Now though, they've sweated and worked through the night to bring the grand total to....... 6.
Number 6? Brazil.
There's also this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-lawyer-ramon-fonseca-2016-4?IR=T
The main thing I saw there was the claim of hacking and not a leak. That will be interesting to see develop, everything else I've read about this so far seems to indicate the total opposite.
The theory that I have heard is that a leaker may have reached out to an outside entity to hack the system, because walking out with that much data is no longer as easy as bringing in a Lady Gaga CD.