Panamanian banking corruption

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844?post_id=10206431761384190_10207747379793828#=

U.S. news = crickets.

This may have bigger repercussions than the 2008 crash, and among other things is leading for some Icelanders to call for the resignation of their prime minister. :eek:

More like; The US whistles nonchalantly as it walks away from the scene of the crime.

I just saw that there’s another thread about it in Great Debates.

No Americans have been listed yet. However when asked about it, the Editor in Chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung apparently said “Just wait for what is coming”.

Well, strictly speaking he said “Einfach mal abwarten, was noch kommt…”, which translates as that I understand.

You do realize, don’t you, that a billion dollars is not a lot of money? Certainly not enough to make a detectable ripple in global finance.

It’s a lot of money when it’s a spread among a few individuals, like “close associates of President Putin”.

And at any rate, it’s the political and legal ramifications that may cause a stir more than any direct economic ones.

Well. If I had a billion dollars, I think I could live on that.

Fox News is covering it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/04/leaked-trove-offshore-financial-data-kicks-off-global-investigation.html?intcmp=hplnws

So, the fact that it is about Putin is more germane to the stir than the fact that it is about a little bit of money. Leave it to the media/industrial complex to point the correct fingers.

The story led on my local news last night, although only in passing.

The US media is waiting to see if Trump or Clinton turn up in these documents.

Wall Street Journal (front page)

NY Times (business section :eek: )

CNN 1 CNN 2

MSNBC 1, MSNBC 2

AP 1, AP 2, AP 3.

I’m not bothering with Reuters.

Yeah, it is the lead story on NPR updates today. It is getting a lot of coverage.

This was the story NPR was playing when I woke up this morning, so not quite crickets. We’ll see how much play it gets.

Regarding the repercussions, why do you think that?

It is the only story on the front page of the paper edition of the Toronto Star. I have seldom seen that happen before, and I’m not sure when the last time was.

And it’s all over the Canadian media, the number one or number two story on CBC, CTV, Radio-Canada, TVA, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun…

This is the biggest pile of vapid and empty hysteria of the year so far.
The news, and virtually EVERY previous response imply that some sort of crime occurred as a result of the media allegations.

Yes, maybe, only maybe, by some as yet unspecified, unproven means, some nationlost out on tax revenue - but show us the Proof.

A major and typically very boring legal accountant/investment “expert” was on BNN today. He said there is no known tax benefit by sending money to Panama. The most likely benefit is hiding dirty money - from kickbacks or theft.

It is wholly possible no laws of God nor Man were broken by this parking of vast sums in Panama.

Yet some authorities may be interested in what personal practices of the most stringent economy enabled politicians and others to accumulate these funds.

The Malaysian prime minister’s son is on the list. That will add a lot of fuel to the fire, as the PM himself has been embroiled in controversy lately for himself being “unusually wealthy,” although that term doesn’t even begin to describe him.

Ironically, in the past week it’s come out that the PM may have laundered a small part of his money by helping to finance the film The Wolf of Wall Street.

In 2008 it was rich people ripping off the little people. This time it’s rich people ripping off the IRS.

There’s no known tax benefit if you move money that has already been taxed to an offshore account. And there’s nothing inherently wrong or illegal about establishing an offshore entity in Panama, especially if one wishes to transact business in the region.

But people also set up entities in tax havens like Panama, the Caymans, and (less common now) Switzerland precisely because they wish to hide income from tax authorities, or hide ownership interests in businesses that would otherwise require disclosure due to conflicts of interest.

I haven’t read the investigatory articles in detail yet, but from some of the secondary coverage it seems clear that a lot of these entities were set up precisely to insulate powerful individuals from legally-required transparency.