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

Good Friends

[alphatel]

Concert cellist Sergei Roldugin has known Vladimir Putin since they were teenagers and is godfather to the president's daughter Maria. On paper, Mr Roldugin has personally made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from suspicious deals. But documents from Mr Roldugin's companies state that: "The company is a corporate screen established principally to protect the identity and confidentiality of the ultimate beneficial owner of the company."

Tomorrow's papers: Sergei Roldugin was found in his Moscow apartment this afternoon, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head.

curious bias in summary

[sittingnut]

these papers implicate lots of western politicians directly, esp from uk. to quote "Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties", and david cameron family .

in contrast, putin's implication is indirect at best, with vague indefinite connections,"The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married."
best friend not described as that before? and location of a wedding reception?

but this summary only mentions non western leaders(if we ignore iceland), as of now. curious!
who is /. afraid of ?

"Massive Corruption"?

[tomhath]

FTFA:

Though there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies, the files raise fundamental questions about the ethics of such tax havens

So the leaks don't expose much of anything. This does raise the obvious question of where did that money come from in the first place, but that's old news.

Where are the US politicians and businessman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... Weird. Also, Canadians, British, Germans, etc. Something is not right.

Re:Definitely nothing to see here.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Talking about conspiracy theories, I find it interesting that the "Panama Leaks" is making front page news on European news outlets, Aljazeera, and others, but I can't find anything about it on any of the major American news outlets like CNN, Fox or MSNBC.

Re:Iceland

[KGIII]

It's amazing what revisionist history has done for the French Revolution. (No, not accusing you - you were the one citing actual history.)

I believe you're from France? I don't know if you're aware of this but a lot of people who are not from France have romanticized the French Revolution and think that it had the desired income. They'll outright disbelieve you when you point out that the revolutionaries all ended up dead (for the most part). They'll refuse to look at the evidence to see that it was more than just a few royal people who died. They'll forget about the violent oppression and the wild pendulum swing (where even the wealthy mimicked the poor in things like manner of dress and social behaviors LEST THEY DIE). They'll ignore that people died for, pretty much, not being happy enough - or faking it. They don't know about the zany calendar changes, the whole swing away from allowing religion, and that it lasted, largely, up until Napoleon where he finally managed to inspire the army into action - and then promptly went crazy AND got away with coming back from exile.

They think the Revolution was over with after a couple of heads were lopped off. They have no idea about the media manipulation that was so bad that some young lady went all the way to find the paper's publisher - stomped half-way across the country with a knife - and killed him. Then she got her head lopped off too.

I am, by no means, a historian but I've read a bunch and there are actually a few good, objective and information dense, documentaries on the subject. One of my favorites is entitled simply that, "The French Revolution." It's not too bad - it's four or five hours long, as I recall. (I'm too lazy to look it up.)

But yeah, I don't know if you know this but outside of your country there are a whole bunch of people who think the French Revolution was a rosy affair that ended the way it was intended to end and was over when the kids (plural?) disappeared and Marie lost her head. The Revolutionaries were batshit insane and the whole society went batshit insane for quite a while. Yet, they've a romantic image that denies the reality.

It ended up exactly nothing like what was intended. They tried to one-up each other to be the most common, for example. Complete with their manner of dress. I believe that it still impacts some of the customs today - but I forget which ones. Something about articles of clothing, socks, pointy shoes - or lack of them, or something like that.

They've a crazy belief that it was something other than what it was - a time of insanity that culminated with Emperor Bonaparte and his eventual failings vs. Russians and English (Lord Nelson, maybe? I am NOT a historian) and was quite a dreadful affair. They, these people who romanticize it without knowing a damned thing about it, want us to emulate it - or at least express such sentiments. I don't think they know what they speak of.

What I do not understand is who did the revisionist history? I don't think it was by the French. I know some French people and have been to France multiple times and even discussed it with a number of citizens and ex-pats. They're quite frank and realistic about it. They largely (at least in the ones I've communicated with) accept that it really wasn't all that it was cracked up to be but that it sort of worked out in the end.

Re:Iceland

[Nostromo21]

Two truisms that came out of the FR:

1. You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor
2. In order for the oppressed to overcome their oppressors, they invariably have to become like them

Getting angry about the wrong thing

[Roger W Moore]

David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent

What is wrong with this is not that they are removing it but that working people need welfare in order to work and be independent in the first place. Paying welfare to people who are in work just allows companies to pay lower wages increasing the profits for the fat cats at the top.

Re:Nah

[KGIII]

I don't really have a problem with tax breaks, as some call them. Many people don't understand them and will call them "subsidies" or "tax-breaks" or other things without actually understanding them. For example, it'd be fucking moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit. Lots of people who complain about things like taxation (and this is NOT an accusation about you personally - let me make that clear) don't even know the difference between revenue and profit.

I've had conversations that went a bit like this:

They: That company had 1.2 billion in revenue. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying half of that in taxes.
Me: Their profit was .3 billion.
They: Then they need to make more money.

They: All corporations suck!
Me: Did you mean that? Really?
They: Yes. Every corporation is evil, money-grubbing, thieves.
Me: You mean like the EFF or Linux Foundation? How about the ACLU, Habitat for Humanities, or BSD?

They: No, they can't let the guy park his car in the underground parking lot for free. It's against the law.
Me: Wait, what?
They: They have a legal obligation to make all the money they can, at any expense, and anything else puts the CEO in jail.
Me: Are you high?
They: It's called fiduciary duty, you fucking idiot. Look it up on Wikipedia! It's predatory stock-holders doing it!

I've had multiples of those conversations in the past month.

So, you'll have to pardon my skepticism when it comes to people, on this site in particular, attempting to discuss matters not pertaining to computers and technology.

I don't know what your income bracket is but I know that I sold my business and retired 8 years ago. As such, I know what the "wealthy" pay in taxes. I also pay attention to the numbers.

Now, this part might be confusing for you. I'll try to make it clear but I'm not the most articulate.

I have a few dollars. You'd call me rich or wealthy if you saw my bank account. And yes, if you need verification then I've actually met multiple people from this very site - in person. I have also been doxxed, back before it was even a thing.

My tax records are not a matter of public record but I pay capital gains rates. I don't do short-term investing. Just so that you know, a good rule of thumb is that if you hold onto it for longer than a year then it is taxed at capital gains rates. If you hold it less than that then it counts as regular income and is taxed at regular income rates - on the same exact form that you have access to. But, so you know, my overall rate, prior to reducing my burden, is 23% - counting both State and Federal. I can reduce it further than that, in a whole host of ways, but I don't really bother.

This is leading to the confusing part...

I not only don't mind taxes but I feel that I could pay more in taxes and not even notice. It's my duty to not really pay more than is required. I'm not very good at that - ask my accountant. I don't save receipts, I donate anonymously, I don't write off/down most of the things I buy that are business related.

Business related? Absolutely. I'm still very much the chief executive officer for several incorporated groups of people. They're rather passive things but the information, the articles of incorporation/corporate charter, can all be dug out of the records easily enough. That's besides the point.

The point is, you can incorporate if you want. Hire yourself as a sub-contractor and pay you to go to your day job. It might be worth it, if your tax burden is high enough.

But, like I said... I don't mind taxes and would actually happily pay more if I had any reason to believe it'd be spent wisely. When I sold my business, I did donate to the government. Yes, donate. I gave the US Government money, my money, and without force. I specifically was able to donate to NASA. In case your'e curious, you can donate to NASA but you can't earmark the donation for a project. Donations must go to the general operations fund. I was wantin