Swiss Banks Making Concessions On Secrecy

Aryabhata writes in with news that should chill the hearts of evil dictators and tax cheats everywhere: one of the last bastions of strong banking secrecy, Switzerland, is bowing to international pressure and agreeing to cooperate with some foreign investigations of wrongdoing. "...the Swiss government announced on Friday that it would cooperate in international tax investigations, breaking with its long-standing tradition of protecting wealthy foreigners accused of hiding billions of dollars. Austria and Luxembourg also said they would help. ... The famed 'numbered accounts' that do not bear the owner's name will still be available for clients willing to pay for added anonymity. ... Over the past month, leaders have made similar promises in Singapore, Liechtenstein, Bermuda, the British islands of Jersey and Guernsey, and tiny Andorra... other 'offshore' banking centers are still available in the Caribbean, Panama, Dubai and elsewhere."

Comments

and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[v1]

The famed 'numbered accounts' that do not bear the owner's name will still be available for clients willing to pay for added anonymity

Anyone that needs one of those accounts is going to be willing to pay that added fee. So besides the Swiss making a little more money off their money hiding, what changes?

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[olesk]

Numbered accounts do not exist - they are a James Bond myth. What we (I'm a Swiss banker) refer to as "numbered accounts" are accounts where the name of the account holder is not references in correspondence with he bank. The idea of accessing your account with only a number is a joke, considering that the Swiss have one of the strictest identification policies for opening and managing accounts in Europe (and thus probably the world). You not only need to ID yourself, but also prove where the money come from to the bank. (Certain countries have poor documentation standards for just about anything, and getting an account if you're from one of those is very very hard. You'd get it in Germany though, where they are more lax on their documentation (as is France), which is a little ironic...).

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[dbcad7]

And yet.. if you were trying to find out where 60 some odd billion dollars that some guy stole from peoples retirement accounts has gone to.. the high road just doesn't sound all that righteous..

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[Patch86]

All the Swiss (and other governments) are planning on doing is co-operating with criminal investigations, which until now they've refused to do. You'll still need warrants, court orders and all the other trappings of due process before they'll co-operate.

Like it or not, if you live/work in a country, you need to pay taxes there. And if you steal money in a country, you need to give it back. Anything that allows people to dodge taxes and profit from crimes is a bad thing, full stop.

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[garett_spencley]

First off, I didn't realize that the banks were not honoring search warrants. My bad, I should have RTFA'd and I appreciate people informing me and not flaming me. Now I know better.

However, what you are describing is mob-mentality and is what leads us down the road to an authoritarian and totalitarian system. I fear that Bernie Madoff is going to be used by the authority to increase it's grip over people's lives just as they do every other "catastrophe". We need to keep things in perspective. We have due process for a reason: to preserve the individual's freedom. People who screw with the system and disrupt the social order do need to be dealt with, but if we do not limit the authority's power then we all lose, rather than gain.

This is the exact same attitude that lead to blatant violations of civil rights after 9/11. People were saying "And yet ... when people get into planes and fly them into buildings killing thousands of innocent people ... the high road just doesn't sound all that righteous".

I would rather let a few bad guys get away, and make the ones that we catch compensate society for their loss (by paying back what they stole, not by taking away their freedom ... unless we're talking about violent offenders of course) than give big brother the ability, potential and incentive to control us.

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swiss Banks didn't respond to search warrants. That's what they're going to cooperate with in some cases from now on.

The Swiss banks have always responded to search warrants issued by a Swiss court for things that are serious crimes in Switzerland (drug dealing, terrorism, money laundering, etc).

HOWEVER, tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. Which is one reason Swiss banks are so popular.

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[fugue]

If "due process" becomes the same sort of joke internationally that it is in the USA (and elsewhere) (border laptop confiscations, random car searches and paper checks, warrantless wiretapping, surveillance face recognition, ...), then it seems reasonable that people will (1) legitimately stop paying taxes to a government that has broken its end of the contract (eg. the Constitution in the USA), and (2) look for large and powerful entities that will actually respect their contracts. If banks have their own fair and reasonable judicial system, it's no less sad that governments don't, but at least someone powerful does. At least for now...

Yes, I've just painted a scenario in which the police go to the bank and demand a client's records, the bank says "let's see your evidence", and the bank decides whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant allowing an investigation. I realise that that is not what is going on in this case. But it's interesting to think about.

War, security, health care, clean water, etc., are all being privatised. Why not justice?

Re:and who ISN'T going to pay up?

[Anonymous Coward]

What legal search warrants?

Technically when a court of country A wants something done in country B, they ask a correct court in country B to help them.

The US authorities did not like the idea that the Swiss banks take privacy seriously, they prefer way more the "US way of administration", where the peons have no rights.

notice that the majority of cases in the US do not get to the trial by jury stage. Wonder why? Simple, risk management for the accused. Would you prefer 6 months in a low security place to the risks of of decades in a high security place, especially if you do not have the resources to prepare your defense?

Generally, you have to consider the following things:

For the accused (irrelevant if one is innocent):
-) you can loose, and you are in deep shit.
-) you can win, and still go bancrupt.
-) you will most certainly loose quite a bit of money defending any case.

For the state:
-) you can loose. Consequences: Most certainly none. Hint: to get any censure the system you work in would have to do the censuring.
-) you can win. You can win, and gets all benefits.

So the whole system is stacked against anyone that gets into to sights of any official.

Public examples that come to mind would be M. Jackson => he was cleared by the court, but it certainly did cost him.

What personal costs (stress, money, negative consequences) did have his accuser, which in this case, btw, had no victim?

Btw, the cards are quite stacked in the US, but they are stacked, in some ways stronger, in some ways less, elsewhere too. Basically, mistakes by the state are usually with no or only minimal consequences to the persons involved in the "error".

E.g. how many police officers get prosecuted for crimes with video proof? Btw, notice that many states in the US made it illegal to tape police officers to avoid this embaressment, of having proof of criminal behaviour. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King)

Stop the Presses...

[retech]

Evil Dictators got caught doing wrong... (stop).

Last bastion of free money compromised... (stop).

Secret stash not so secret... (stop).

Mugsy and Lefty may be on the take... (stop).

Slashdot editor KDawson sensationalizes yet another tired story... (stop).

Tax Cheats?

[anagama]

Like cheating an inept and corrupt government is wrong somehow.

Re:Tax Cheats?

[T Murphy]

Like cheating an inept and corrupt government is wrong somehow.

If you consider that true, then considering how a perfect government is never going to happen, that would imply taxes should never be paid.
So much for civilization.

Re:Tax Cheats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me again what minimal government in a rational society attempted a system of voluntary taxation but failed completely.

Oh, that's right, it hasn't happened yet, because governments invariably end up being bloated and unpopular, so must force people to pay taxes at the point of a gun. And it all works because of a vast cadre of useful idiots like yourself, the disciples of authoritarianism.

Nothing that has been achieved could not be achieved with a smaller government to which productive citizens willingly pay for service. Indeed, I spent a lot of time pretty much entirely avoiding paying tax, but willingly give to charities (neither political nor religious!), foundations, veteran/law enforcement benevolent funds, etc. I care about those who protect me and those who are weaker than me, but I hate you because you want to make me your slave.

Fortunately, I've probably got enough wealth behind me that I can use accountants, lawyers and friends in the right places to keep me going as I am. I'm sad that I can't help even more people, rich and poor, to go through life as I do.

Re:Tax Cheats?

[garett_spencley]

Brace yourself, you're in for a real shocker. The USA did not have an income tax prior to 1913 ! *gasp*

The only role I see for government in a free society is preserving freedom. The courts and the police do need to exist in order to deal with those members who would inflict harm upon others, and to act as an arbitrator, when requested, to settle contract disputes. Everything else, you do not need a government to private... and you do not need an income tax to pay for the judiciary.

"I guess you can do without public roads, you'll just build your own?"

All over the US there are private roads and people voluntarily pay tolls to travel them because, brace yourself again, they provide a much more pleasant commute. They deal with traffic congestion immediately, they undertake repairs and maintenance quickly and effectively, without bloated government bureaucracy making repairs and improvements take years and cost tax payers millions of dollars and they do it with their own money.

"You can also pay for your kids school? Health care?"

Government involvement in those two institutions has railroaded both of them straight into the ground. In Canada, for example, there is no law preventing private schools from operating but they're virtually unheard of because everyone is forced to pay taxes to send other people's kids to public school. If government got out of the school system entirely you would have lots of schools opening and competing with each other, forcing prices down. It would be in every school's best interest to increase enrollment and student loans with reasonable, market-determined interest rates would become common for poor students. The level of charity would increase as well. As far as health care is concerned, you should listen to some of what Ron Paul has to say. He was a practicing obstetrician long before he entered politics, and long before medicaid, medicare and government got it's hands on the system. According to him charities and churches would build hospitals and even in the private for-profit hospitals no one was ever turned away because they couldn't afford to pay. It's precisely because we are taxed and regulated so much that these things get so expensive to begin with.

"If you get permanently disabled somehow and can no longer work for a living, I assume you'll have enough savings to last a lifetime?"

Again, if people are allowed to keep what they work for, and if government does not try to interfere with who people trade with and how and why and under what circumstances the economy prospers, people have a lot more personal wealth and charities become much more common. Insurance will also still exist. This goes straight back to medical care. No one will bother to take out insurance plans to cover the occasional doctor's visit, but insurance will still exist to cover extreme unforeseen chronic illness. Employer-provided benefits would also still exist as a way to compete with other businesses for labour and attract employees. As long as it's optional and not mandated by "pro-labour" government regulation it's a boon to society and not a hindrance.

"Oh and can I assume that don't care one bit what happens to those who cannot pay for all this on their own (ie. at least 50% of the population)?"

I urge you to read a bit on economics. Read up on the work of Ludwig Von Mises, F.A Hayek, Murray M. Rothbard and start to ask yourself WHY there is so much poverty. The answer is almost always institutional. During the 1800's the USA economy grew at a tremendous rate. The country was seen as the land of opportunity where you could make it with a bit of hard work. Gradually the government started to expand and intervene with programs sold to the public as a way to help overcome the problems that they perceived in the system. Problems which are all relative. If you compare today's standard of living with that of 1700 England under Serfdom, or even 1930 in Russia and Germany under socialism, you realize just how much the free market

Re:Tax Cheats?

[SerpentMage]

Dude what have you been smoking?

First let's tackle health care shall we...

Health care in private does not work because it is upside down economics. It is not like getting car insurance because for the most part you can avoid getting into an accident. BUT when you get old you cannot avoid cancer or a whole host of diseases that will afflict you.

This means when you are young you should actually pay more in insurance so that you are covered for the future. But health insurance is priced like car insurance and thus as you get sick you end up paying more. It is wrong!

When Ron Paul and such talk they talk CRAP, yes you read that right CRAP. They talk about breaking a leg, giving birth, etc. They are not talking about chronic diseases, which are actually the core of our health care dilemna. We have people who should have kissed their lives goodbye still living. And that COSTS A WHOLE HEAPING LOAD OF MONEY!

So if you are going to talk private I say make youngsters pay more when they are healthy than when they are old.

Oh yeah that will not work since we tend to be people who only react when they are having problems.

Let me give you a secret, do some research on Bismarck the state leader. He introduced concept of health care, and pensions. He did so to pacify the people. But he did so with a very high bar because he knew that health care and pensions can suck a government dry.

The true cost of health care, pensions and society can only be borne by the populace as a whole. Do the math and you will see there is no other solution.

Well there is a solution, those that have the money get it, those that don't die...

Re:Tax Cheats?

[shutdown -p now]

Brace yourself, you're in for a real shocker. The USA did not have an income tax prior to 1913 ! *gasp*

Correction: the USA did not have a Federal income tax prior to 1913.

The only role I see for government in a free society is preserving freedom. The courts and the police do need to exist in order to deal with those members who would inflict harm upon others, and to act as an arbitrator, when requested, to settle contract disputes. Everything else, you do not need a government to private... and you do not need an income tax to pay for the judiciary.

There had been no society in the history of the world that worked as you describe. To me, it is a strong indicator that this is nothing but utopia - not any more real than communism.

I won't even bother dealing with the rest of your arguments, save for this: there are many other countries in the world, and quite a few with standard of living higher than in US. All the latter ones also have more government intervention into economy, and higher welfare. In fact, in general, it's the countries with the higher welfare spending (and taxes, of course) that tend to have least poverty, best healthcare and education, and so on (Scandinavia, for example). This clearly shows that the model works, and any problems you might have in the U.S. with "inefficient and bloated government" are your own local problems, and not inherent in the idea of strong government in and of itself. Maybe, if you stop chasing the utopia of Libertarianism, and instead work on fixing your own government so that, when its intervention is needed, it's not "inefficient and bloated", you'd get a lot more bang for the buck.

Re:Tax Cheats?

[garett_spencley]

You won't get any arguments from Libertarians claiming that a true free market has ever been put into practice. The only thing every approaching it could be the USA right after independence, but even that wouldn't be entirely accurate since the 2nd president, John Adams, created the first central bank. So in that sense, maybe it is Utopian. But so what ? Are we afraid of ideas now ? I strongly refute Marx and Engels ideas but I listen to everything that they have to say first.

Austrian economics grew out of a battle with socialism during World War II. The simple idea is that if you let people be free they will create their own prosperity. That might be Utopian but it sure sounds like something worth investigating. I don't claim to be an expert economist, but I have actually gone out and read the books published by the Austrian economists and have also read contrary views such as those published by Marx and Keynes in order to ensure that I'm not just absorbing some ideal without getting the whole picture. The Austrian economists make the most sense to me.

According Austrian economists depressions and involuntary unemployment can be explained very convincingly by applying their principles to interventionism. Fiat currency and credit expansion cause the boom / bust cycle which create depressions, and regulations interfere with competition. It's worth reading what they have to say before you condemn them as Utopian dreamers. If I could recommend only one book to anyone it would be "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises. If that book does not challenge your views then nothing I will ever say or do could ever convince you to give what I have to say a second thought.

I've never been to the Scandanavian countries. I really wish that I could comment directly. The only thing I can say on the subject is vague: how do you know that your standard of living would not be even higher without those institutions in place ? I will point out that I'm actually Canadian. I live on a border town with the US / Canada and so I have been exposed to both cultures and conditions in both countries. Most of where I'm coming from deals in principle. I am self employed but I am very much middle class (lower middle class is probably more accurate) and I having been exposed to the writings of the Libertarians I can't help but wonder if economic growth and prosperity is being held back by governments. Until you study the subject you can not claim that everything that they say is false. There was a time when all we knew was Serfdom and despotism. Yet it would have been false to claim that Liberalism in some form could not work because it's never been tried. At least socialism and communism have been tried and have proven to fail. They are no longer Utopian dreams, they are failed experiments. I argue very strongly against the notion that laissez-faire has been tried and proven a failure.

Re:Tax Cheats?

[garett_spencley]

"My problem with the whole Von Mises set and philosophy is that if you take the arguments seriously and push them to their logical conclusions, they not only suggest that it's better to refrain from taking wealth away from the wealthiest, it's actually better to funnel it towards them in a massively regressive way. The arguments all go towards supporting the view that the incremental utility to society is always higher when a dollar goes into a wealthy person's hand than a poor person's since the wealthy one is more likely to increase production through the use of that dollar than the poor person is (the poor person will merely use the dollar to increase consumption). "

I urge you to read "Human Action" if you really want to understand the subject, because clearly you don't.

In the truly free market people are simply left to their own free will to decide who to exchange with. It all starts at the beginning. As individuals we need certain things to provide for our survival and comfort. If we work together we produce more of these things. The idea is that through voluntary mutually beneficial exchange we can all get what we want and need. It's important to note the differences between that and socialism. According to Mises the key paradox behind socialism and communism is that in such a system it becomes impossible to determine what the people need, want and how much of it due to the lack of monetary prices. Monetary prices are the only invention that humans have ever come up with to measure subjective value.

So you actually have it backwards, free market does not reward the wealthy. It creates wealthy people by rewarding those who most effectively provide for the needs and wants of the people. A person can only become wealthy if he produces something that satisfies others. The moment he ceases to do so he stops being rewarded by his peers and he stands to lose all of his wealth if he does not invest it in something that will increase the standard of life of his peers.

According to the Austrian school of thought, the reason the markets are creating so much poverty while at the same time making the rich richer at present is because governments, via regulations and monetary control, are giving hand-outs to the wealthy and ensuring that they stay wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Facts & fiction

[olesk]

As possibly the only Swiss banker on Slashdot I should perhaps point out that:
- "numbered accounts" are a myth from James Bond movies. They do *not* exist. What is referred to as a "numbered account" is an account where the bank offers to send all communication without referencing the name of the client, as a way of preserving anonymity if the communication is intercepted/stolen
- ID requirements for opening a Swiss bank account today are *more* stringent than in EU. France is notably lax, which is a little ironic (you need to document not only who you are but *how* you got the money, and if there ever is a case where a bank fails to follow these guidelines, they can lose their banking license). Citizens of certain countries will find it nearly impossible to open an account in Switzerland as the level of documentation in their home country is not acceptable for opening a Swiss bank account.
- The Swiss distinguish between tax fraud (fabricating papers, forging signatures etc.) which is a criminal offense and where the bank will hand over information on your account, and tax evasion (failing to list all assets/income) which is *not* a criminal offense in Switzerland. The latter category they have now conceded to assist with on a case by case basis.

It is easy to misunderstand Swiss banking secrecy as some kind of dodgy way of assisting rich foreigners with tax fraud/evasion. In fact there is no difference between the rights of a wealthy foreigner and someone like me who (though not a Swiss national) has a job and get a regular salary in Switzerland. We all have the same rights.

To understand where all this comes from, one has to understand the very strong federal system of Switzerland. The Swiss "cantons" are almost as independent as separate states, with a weak and small central government. It boils down to this: the rights of the individual is valued much higher than the rights of the state. This is why the Swiss police cannot (nor the "IRS" or any other government entity) get my account information in Switzerland. This tilt of rights in favor of the individual versus the state also leads to a lot of other differences from most other countries, like that assisted suicide is legal in some cantons, including my canton of Zurich, liberal drug policies etc. In certain cantons you can actually negotiate your tax with the local cantons (who all have different tax rates) directly.

Re:A prettied-up version of organized crime

[Dramacrat]

You just quoted Judge Judy, rendering your entire legalese null and void.