Yup. It’s incredibly easy to set up a company in most countries (including the US). If you find it’s easy to set up a company in the country that you live in, why would you expect it to be any more difficult to set up companies in other countries?
Pretty much exactly my thoughts on the subject. I feel kind of sorry in a way for the journos involved - they’ve worked incredibly hard and put in a huge amount of work to uncover something most people either knew or probably suspected anyway.
Of course people suspect this, but this is hard evidence, which I can assure you various national revenue / taxation departments will be salivating over. I assume that they will hand over the relevant raw records to national governments on request. There are legitimate reasons to have offshore companies, but pouring massive amounts of income in to them to avoid taxes is not one of them, thats a criminal offence in most countries. It’s far too early to say nothing is going to come of this.
The entire affair seems to me just another instant of a recurring and irremediable breach of democracy and failure of capitalism.
“Crime, boy, I dunno.”
There is a vast difference between, on the one hand, knowing generically that organised criminals and the super-rich are likely to use tax havens for illegal purposes and ,on the other, being able to say that a specific person used this specific tax haven in this specific illegal manner. It’s a measure of the powerlessness we feel in the face of the super-rich that these revelations are being greeted with such passivity. It’s not a response that we’d find for other classes of criminal or crime: “I know that robberies happen. Why should the fact that I have evidence of a specific robbery mean anything?”
Also of note in the UK is the PM David Cameron’s father is named in the leak. I mention this so that this makes (a little) sense:
A man, a plan, a cad (e.g. dodger) X at risk? Cam’s da bad? Smack sir! Tax reg dodged, a canal, Panama
I’m not saying “nothing will come of this”, I’m saying “I don’t really get why this is a Huge News Event Which Requires All The Media Coverage”. I mean, I work in communications so I do get why it’s a Huge News Event, but at the same time, to my mind, the news is when someone important actually gets charged or faces court or gets convicted something and goes to prison as a result of the information in the documents.
To my mind, it’s a bit like the journalistic equivalent of those incredibly expensive research studies which confirm something everyone already knows anyway, like most people prefer chocolate to vanilla icecream or that people who exercise more and eat less tend not to be overweight.
That doesn’t make the research or investigation invalid or that it shouldn’t be acted upon, but it does seem surprising that something Everyone Knows Is Happening is getting such widespread media coverage IMO.
Given the reporting I’ve read so far, I’m still not able to say that. I’ve got to assume that the reporters cherry-picked out the best stuff, and none of what I’ve seen rises to that level.
I’ve already seen articles naming people who are important and known in their areas. The fallout that is expected from the diffussion is that public interest may make the relevant justice and tax/revenue departments investigate and prosecute.
It may not seem as a lot of money globally (yet), but in each area affected it may be important.
What does either the democracy or the capitalism have to do with this?
The majority of persons cited are the kleptocrats from non-democratic or faux-democratic countries and their actions have not a thing specific to the capitalism.
Sure, one would hope so. But it’s a long road between what the reporters have given us and a successful prosecution. For example, the Prime Minister of Iceland is taking flak on this, and deservedly so, but the articles I’ve read do not claim that he performed a specific illegal act on X date and by Y means.
What country * isn’t* a faux-democracy?
It is hard to know what extent for the information that is given what is actually “hiding” and what is the journalists who have weak understandings of business to sex-up banalities. Although of course the companies that connect to the cronies of the dictatorships is more clearly some thing of real interest…
[quote=“Latro, post:32, topic:751136”]
What country * isn’t* a faux-democracy?[/QUOTE
Any of the major democracies are not faux-democracies.
I have not any respect for the extremist Left-populist purism. There is not any comparison between a France or a UK and a faux democracy like the Egypt or the Russia, or a place of great doubtfulness like the Pakistan.
Not yet from him, but I already read an article, in Spanish, clearly spelling out irregularities by dates of a certain local businessman. Ok, maybe the exact hour of the dealings was missing.
I’m guessing they do have similar data for others.
Am I the only one wondering about the math, here? 2.6 terrabytes containing details of 200,000 offshore shells means 13 megs per shell. How exactly are they using up all of that space? I could go into a lot of detail about a shell company in less than a kilobyte. Is every page of this thing a full-color high-resolution image, or something? It seems to me that all that the large filesize does is make it practically impossible to sift through the data.
If the files includes the things like investment funds it is more than easy for a company documentation to be 30-60 megabytes from the non compressed graphics in the placement memorandums.
There is no thing sinister in the large document sizes - the documentation of a company may include many scans as well of the sigantures pages and scans of the faxes etc.
it seems to me many people here are very naive.
Scanned documents, maybe? Fax correspondence?
Yes, scanned documents like the legal filings, supporting documents like the memorandums that often have images and scans, the scanned signatures pages which are usually needed.
It is very easy to have a company file that is very banal and simple and its documentation is tens and tens of the megabytes.
This is the problem with the reaction without any knowledge.
To what exact purpose their customers wanted to hide assets or payments is obviously something the people at Mossack Fonseca did not want to know, so I should expect the leaked data not to contain that information. To investigate that requires powers of search and seizure that journalists don’t have (but that prosecutors and tax authorities, sicced on the customers just yesterday, do), so the present absence of that information does not mean anything.