Panama Papers: Data Leak Exposes Massive Official Corruption (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The hidden wealth of some of the world's most prominent leaders, politicians and celebrities has been revealed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. The Guardian, working with global partners, will set out details from the first tranche of what are being called "the Panama Papers". Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing 11.5m files leaked from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world's fourth biggest offshore law firm.

Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Vladimir Putin, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt's former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson. The leak is one of the biggest ever - larger than the US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in 2010, and the secret intelligence documents given to journalists by Edward Snowden in 2013. More here. Search the Offshore Leaks Database here.

Comments

Iceland

[Rei]

It's Sigmundur Davið - that's an eth, not an o. And yes, people were already furious with the way he's been running our government, now it's boiling over. Hopefully we'll be getting rid of him soon enough....

Re:Iceland

[Rei]

Oh thank you so much! Because I was so looking forward to being lectured about how AWESOME Framsóknarflokkurinn is from someone who's never lied here! Who gives a rat's arse that they've repeatedly stolen from the nation to enrich themselves, smuggled guns into the country, shot us down the rankings in terms of press freedom by numerous actions against the media, gutted government services to pay for policies to benefit the wealthy, and on and on. No, no, we're supposed to be thankful that they broke their campaign promise where they said that we'd get a vote on EU membership - instead breaking the law by bypassing parliament (who had the actual legal right to withdraw our membership) to withdraw it without giving the nation a vote - even though a popular vote would most likely have rejected EU membership anyway.

Yes, I'm supposed to be SO BLOODY THRILLED with them. Thank you very much, Person-Who-Does-Not-Live-Here!

As for your "#2", SIMMI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Quite to the contrary, Framsóknarflokkurinn and Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn were organizing the agreement with the British that ultimately got voted down. It was our president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who sent it to referrendum. But don't get too thrilled about King Ólafur, he's a penultimate politician; he was the best friend of the banksters when the economy was doing well, called them role models... but he sure knows how to sail a turning tide. Thankfully, he's going to be gone soon, too.

And FYI, we DID bow down to the IMF. Seriously, read what the IMF wrote about us. We took on an IMF package and fully implemented it. We're their new poster child. Contrary to popular belief, our government has always paid its debts. What we have not paid is non-government debts - which the EFTA court ruled were not owed. The British and Dutch actions in Icesave were ridiculous; it explicitly spelled out in the Icesave accounts, one link from the front page, that they were backed by a private fund not the government as the primary insurance, and that the secondary insurance was (as is proper under treaty) the British and Dutch governments, respectivevly. Their attempt to try to pass on their loan obligations to Iceland was just shameful (although certainly in line with their long history of exploiting us - hey Brits, ever plan to pay us back for all the cod you stole???).

Also FYI, Greece had government backed banks. And the issue was over whether or not to reject government owned debt, which nobody at all on any side disputed was government-owned. And they, unlike us, had a severe income problem as well; we had balanced budgets (before our economy fell off a cliff, at least), and a low amount of government debt (again, before we heavily indebted ourselves over the crisis trying to get the banks back on their feet - yes, we did pump large amounts of money into the banking industry, even though we let some go into receivership)

But no, please please, tell me more about my country and how we're supposed to love our corrupt gun-smuggling perpetually-lying media-crushing government!

Nobody from the USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking around, it doesn't look like there are any people listed from the US.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/

Re:"Massive Corruption"?

[cryptolemur]

While it's not illegal to use offshore companies, the moment one "forgets" to mention to his friendly, local tax official about the 500 million pounds/dollars one "earned" last year, and are now hidden behind the facade of these offshore companies (that actually exists only for that sole purpose), it becomes illegal. At least in Europe.

Well, at leat for now. Our marvelous right-wing cabinet did try to make tax evasion legal, but they received enough of a shit-storm to delay the plan.

Re:curious bias in summary

[whipslash]

Also the leaders mentioned were mentioned by name in the Guardian article, where as the rest were not

Re:Nah

[Cederic]

And now to find out they are probably throwing money through these tax schemes on top?

So you're basically just ranting with no actual facts, just blind ignorance.

Made more ironic that it's been known for years that Cameron's family fortune was in fact made through tax havens:
http://www.theguardian.com/pol...

Try and be a little more informed, a little less blinkered and a fuckload less bloody stupid.

Re:Nah

[KGIII]

Consult a legal professional.

However, filing an application to incorporate isn't hard. You generally need three people. One will be president, the VP, and the third will be the treasurer. Or, COO, COE, or COO. Or whatever, really. You just need to fill in those parts of the document.

You basically use your SSN as your tax ID number - they work just fine for that purpose. If the asset's primary use is for the business (in this case, you doing your job) then you can write it off. You can't write off lunch with your wife - necessarily. If she's in sales and you're entertaining a prospective customer then you can write it off. You probably won't be able to write off your whole car but you might get some depreciation. (Don't forget to claim it when you sold it or traded it in.)

There are lots of things to do. Incorporate AND hire an accountant and keep the lawyer on retainer. Depending on how much you make, it'll probably save you money in the first year. You can incorporate and get the protections associated with it. Your boss might need to be amicable to this.

easy : they cheat

[aepervius]

"congress had an overall approval rating of 13%. Yet, 95% of the incumbents retained their seat." Only they don't call it cheating they call it gerrymandering. A nasty little way to make sure the districts are sliced in a way that popular voting does not count, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering "how to steal an election") you probably know that but I wanted to remind all our US friend how they get fucked in the ass by their politician.

Re:Nah

[Jahta]

Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.

Here's a couple. By the UK government's own figures 0.7% of the entire welfare budget is accounted for by fraud. That's less even than the amount due to clerical errors by the Department of Work and Pensions, which comes to 0.9% of the total budget.

Better yet, there is good evidence that the welfare system is effectively subsidising large companies, like Tesco and fashion chain Next, who are paying employees on or below the poverty line and letting the welfare system pick up the pieces. Of course you will never see wealthy companies (or their wealthy executives and shareholders) called "benefit cheats"; they are merely "optimising their cash flow".