Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[tzijlstra]

Can you tell me what you think is illegal about the "money-streams" that I have and which you apparently want to expose to the world?

 

PS - just gone back to your explanation earlier (I missed it). There is nothing wrong with your money-streams, or at least I hope there isn't. That isn't the same as using an account on the Bahamas to kill traceability of funds and then using it to buy votes, protection, influence and so on.

 

So I'd be pretty darned worried if some of that money in your account would find its way to the accountant of one of the companies you have stocks in, in exchange for a small 'adjustment' in figures or an innocent 'prior warning' to bad results being published.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 12:28 ----------

 

Don't you mean allegedly?

 

Am I mentioning any names or anything that isn't already in the press? No, I don't mean allegedly. This stuff is happening.

[InigoMontoya]

I'd laugh heartily if the Blairs were named. I wouldn't be shocked though.

 

 

Only a few Tories (so far!)

 

The late Ian Cameron*. Michael Ashcroft. Pamela Staples. Michael Mates.

 

But there's a lot of information to trawl, and wouldn't be surprised if a few more "high profile" individuals with links to government** didn't turn up in here somewhere.

 

They were a large organisation specialising (in part) in the Legal (my stress and italics) movement of money to offset or reduce tax liabilities.

 

That high-worth individuals and corporate bodies would not avail themselves of such services would be a surprise, not that they have done, and given the large volume of business they do, it would only take a very small percentage of that to be corrupt to have a high net value.

 

(* A man whose son is on record as saying "aggressive" tax-avoidance schemes are, and I quote, "morally wrong")

 

** Any government. Not just the UK, and not just the incumbents.

[JFKvsNixon]

Example of what?

 

Of money streams that at the very least warrants a closer investigation?

[foxy lady]

 

Am I mentioning any names or anything that isn't already in the press? No, I don't mean allegedly. This stuff is happening.

 

Actually it isn't. It might be mentioned in the press but you are drawing conclusions. Just saying. Litigation can be expensive. Ask Alan Davies or Sally Bercow.

Edited April 4, 2016 by foxy lady

[Danny_Boy]

That's a slightly odd view to hold. I'd say if we had a more open salary position then there would be less inequal pay or more people kicking off at higher earners who do little to really earn their money. (People like me who simply get paid relatively highly because of *rare* skills).

 

It has to be an all or nothing thing though. If I disclose and others don't then I'm at a disadvantage so it would need to a law to force publication, which will never happen for good reasons, so we are back to where we started

 

Not sharing my income with my partner though? That's just a bit weird. How do you apply for mortgages? Or loans? Or anything financial at all? We have a joint account so I can't hide a penny!

 

EDIT: Sorry Danny_Boy just seen your follow up so nothing I have posted is relevant

 

Haha no problem, it's not as weird an arrangement as my first post suggested

[mossdog]

Makes all the millions lost by car tax and insurance "Avoidance " down through the years look like peanuts!

[tzijlstra]

Actually it isn't. It might be mentioned in the press but you are drawing conclusions. Just saying. Litigation can be expensive. Ask Alan Davies or Sally Bercow.

 

Don't be daft. Here is my source for the things I repeated. There is no name mentioned in that article, because the whole point of these accounts is that names aren't mentioned. So if someone at FIFA thinks I said anything that deserves litigation than they will have to reveal why and who thinks so. I think that would be a bit more expensive for them in the long term, don't you?

[foxy lady]

Don't be daft. Here is my source for the things I repeated. There is no name mentioned in that article, because the whole point of these accounts is that names aren't mentioned. So if someone at FIFA thinks I said anything that deserves litigation than they will have to reveal why and who thinks so. I think that would be a bit more expensive for them in the long term, don't you?

 

I believe that's pretty much what Sally Bercow said before the court case. By the way she lost.

 

It turns out that it is libelous to repeat someone else's libel. Who'd have thought?

 

Actually FIFA probably has more money than you.

[Cyclone]

I believe that's pretty much what Sally Bercow said before the court case. By the way she lost.

 

It turns out that it is libelous to repeat someone else's libel. Who'd have thought?

 

Actually FIFA probably has more money than you.

 

It's difficult to libel someone without naming someone, or at least providing enough information to identify them.

[L00b]

By stating that company X (which was nothing more than a registered number on the Cayman isles) owned a percentage of the image rights for a particular game Fifa could justify sending money to this company. As the Cayman Islands haven't got an open accounting obligation this money essentially disappeared from legal accountability. At which point it could be used to pay person Y for their well appreciated vote for Dubai hosting the World Cup.

Be careful not misrepresent or 'dilute' the legality of a transacting basis (royalty for the commercial use of image rights) for any misusing of the mechanism (parties and technical means involved in the payment of the royalty).

 

"Image rights" do exist indeed, and are an intrinsic part of corporate life in the XXIst century. Typically they include a collection of context-dependent trade mark(s), design(s) and copyright(s) rights associated with a venue, an event, a character and the like and, all intangible that they may be as assets...they are assets all the same, in some cases extremely valuable indeed. Just ask Coca Cola Inc. how much their various trademarks' rights respectively weigh in on their balance sheet

 

In the context you posted, Caymans domiciliation or not, the "percentage ownership" should be relatively easy to verify via due diligence on the image rights (what are they: they did not arise in the Caymans, so they first arose independently of X's domiciliation, so their existence can be ascertained independently of X/the Caymans incorporation 'niceties') and the equity stake of the IP Holding owning company (what proves X's percentage stake in 'what are they' above: what percentage based on what contract, assignment, which parties, when <etc.>).

 

If it cannot be verified, then there would be a strong suspicion of money laundering indeed.

 

But finger-pointing at a deal because a party is offshore and the topic is royalty for image rights is too easy (too lazy, really) a shortcut. Particularly when the transaction could be completely legitimate.

Edited April 4, 2016 by L00b