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

[ColdWetDog]

Like holographic storage soonish?

Or fusion power soonish?

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!

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

Definitely nothing to see here.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.

Re:Definitely nothing to see here.

[dugancent]

Conspiracy Theorist are nut job losers. Reporters, truly dedicated professionals and insiders are the ones that make this kind of information available, not people who post on conspiracy forums and rant on tumblr.

You have to get away from the keyboard if you want to make a difference.

Re:Definitely nothing to see here.

[quantaman]

Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.

You might as well hand the conspiracy theorists credit for saying that WWE is fake. It's common knowledge that the super-rich hide assets, especially the politically elite in countries with weak democratic institutions.

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 only remotely surprising one on that list is the Icelandic Prime Minister, there's a smaller bombshell in:

Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.

But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.

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.

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 ?

Re:curious bias in summary

[bug1]

A story about probable corrupt practices and conspiracy to defraud by thousands of powerful organisations going back to 1970.

And your concerned about the bias in the summary on one of thousands of sites linking to it.... priorities, my friend.

Re:curious bias in summary

[whipslash]

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

"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.

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.

Where are the US politicians and businessman?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Where are the US politicians and businessman?

[hazeii]

This is a very good point;it's almost less what's there, than what's been left out.

As i understand the story so far, some southerm german paper gets this leak and enlists a *Washington DC* organisation (ICIJ) to ensure the relevant informatiion is appropriately publicised.

Re:Nobody from the USA?

[nedlohs]

Americans don't use the "fourth largest" provider or such services... It's not even in the top 3!

Re:Nah

[Pig Hogger]

Nobody is starving just because people with money are using legal tax shelters.

Sure they are; government assistance programs are not as funded as they could be.

Re:Nah

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name a nation of people suffering because fucks like David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent, while they and their cronies all benefit from a wage increase.

And now to find out they are probably throwing money through these tax schemes on top?
They will get destroyed if any link is found. Absolutely destruction of their whole party.
I would hardly be surprised if the lying hypocrite fuck is part of it. He lies through his teeth so hard every single day.

These people, just like scummy multinationals, are stealing money from taxpayers in every country they work.
Money owed to the state.
Don't give me your "but capitalism" bullshit, capitalism is at the core of corruption in the financial world and regulation IS needed to keep them in order.
The free market is the worst thing. It should be banned universally.
All it has lead to it regulatory committees being paid off, or being created BY said companies just to appease a government-run agency, despite them doing absolutely nothing to stop the corruption they should be stopping. (hell, then you have groups like the FDA and FCC in the US being paid off all the damn time to turn away and ignore things)

People are literally dying horrible, painful slow deaths because of these companies releasing toxic foods and products that go out for years before 3rd parties catch them.
It matters for naught, as nothing can be done anyway besides "hey, hey guys, stop selling these things okay?", so it is pretty pointless them saying anything!

It needs to stop. NOW.

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.

Um... we already knew they were doing this

[rsilvergun]

so I hardly see this as news. At worst It's moderately annoying for the people involved. Also the leakers are probably going to die soon (poor bastards).

Remember all those reforms that happened after Snowden's leaks? No? That's because there weren't any. So long as social issues exist to divide the working class into easily manageable groups you're not gonna see squat. Let me know when you figure out how to get people to stop caring about Abortion, Gays and guns long enough to care about economics..

So are we going to ask for military trials?

[guruevi]

If it's American documents released, there would've been 50 comments in the first 5 minutes begging for military trials and how these leaks are damaging to the country, how we need to protect our military and their assets. People were crying out for the DoJ to arrest, prosecute, stow away in Guantanamo and even execute the leakers. Now that it's primarily about other countries, I don't see any of that outcry. I don't see any media, mobs or prosecutors demanding for these leakers to go through anything like what Assange, Swartz or Snowden are going through.

I hope they find a Hillary/Obama/Sanders threesome somewhere in there.

Re:Nah

[KGIII]

Non sequitur... It does not follow. Literally.

It does not follow that if the government had more money that they'd be spending it on social safety nets. It does not matter the government, it simply does not follow. It is not necessarily true that they'd be more inclined to feed the hungry than they would be to make a down payment on yet-another-expensive-defense-project.

I've been alive for quite a while and that doesn't necessarily make me wise - but it does mean I've had the chance to witness a lot of things. One of the things I've witnessed is that governments, at least the more stable of them, don't actually have an income problem. Not at all. They have a spending problem. We talk about the tax breaks and the tax rates while ignoring the fact that the overall taxation rate on GDP is actually as high was it has ever been.

No, the governments have plenty of money. They just spend it on some really stupid things - like another bomber, fighter, aircraft carrier, or straight up hookers and blow. A trivial, nearly meaningless, sum might actually go/have gone to needy people but that's not even a certainty. Hell, it's not even a high probability. So, that doesn't follow. If the government had more money, there's almost certain more hookers and more blow and those just aren't going to do themselves, you know.

Give it ot Wikileaks, please!!!

[zedaroca]

Some journalists are going to publish only part of it, to damage only those that they have interest in hurting. Wikileaks publishes everything, and that's what we need, so that every citizen can go through it and show what's inside.

People who have access to it, please, leak it all.

(I was checking the journalists in ICIJ from my country, they are not from very different media outlets. I can see a lot staying hidden and I imagine it will be the same for other countries)

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:Getting angry about the wrong thing

[JoeMerchant]

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.

Wal-Mart - family of the fattest cats from Arkansas.

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[jawtheshark]

I live in one of these tax havens... I pay taxes. Quite a lot of them. Less than in the neighbouring countries, but since it's so tiny here, living here is so very expensive that I sometimes think people in neighbouring countries have it better due to a lower cost of living.

Anyway, that's not what I came to say. While it is most certainly true that everybody could profit from these tax havens by "filing the paperwork", that is not entirely true. Many require you to create companies and I know as a fact, than in my country that's not cheap. Well, okay, it'll cost you about the price of a small family car. Is that much? Not really if you've got millions or billions. So, that is one barrier of entry.

Also keep in mind that many smaller businesses and private persons, need their income to actually live. So, that 100000$ income you have? You need it. No way you offshore it all, so you can save on taxes. Bigger companies and very rich individuals have the luxury of having a certain fluidity and can do with that "extra money", including making it disappear in shady tax schemes.

Finally, the above problems didn't exist, you have to look at the return of investment. If I'm setting up a complicated, perhaps even borderline illegal, tax scheme to avoid taxes of, let's say 500$ a year, am I investing my time wisely? We're talking 1.37$ saved a day... That's not even the overpriced latte at Starbucks. Drop the caffeine habit, and save more...

So, I'm not really all that sure it's a matter of "too lazy to do the paperwork".

Re:Nah

[Gussington]

Everyone who is not doing it, has his own reasons, probably just o lazy to do the paper work or lack of trust in the the lawyers needed in the "destination country".

Half of the world live on less than $2/day, I'm sure there's probably other reasons than not trusting your lawyer...

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".