Thursday, April 9, 2009

In Bocas del Toro - Mistaken land identity hell

IN BOCAS DEL TORO
Mistaken land identity hell
03-26-2009 | MARIJULIA PUJOL LLOYD
mpujolstar@ laestrella.com.pa
A couple has bought their land with title, but they still do not have any protection when somebody apparently has the wrong land title

Panama Star PANAMA. Lands disputes between foreigners and Panamanians are becoming quite common, mainly because properties, especially in beauty spots in the provinces of Chiriqui and Bocas del Toro, have increased their value dramatically.
This time a powerful Panamanian family, the Eleta are trying to take part of the land belonging to an English - New Zealand couple.
In letters sent to the Panama Star by Dr Ricardo Rangel and Linda and David Gillingham, they complained that on three occasions the Circuit Judge of Bocas del Toro, Manuel Garcia has tried to enter their farm, located in Isla Colon, with the purpose of measuring their plot and separating the Eleta’s from theirs, although according to the public records it is nowhere near it.
The story began 10 years ago when the Gillinghams bought their land, which was properly titled at the Public Registry. They built a house, a botanical garden and a nursery.
Everything was fine until January 2009, when the Circuit Judge demanded access to their property, to measure and separate a plot from it, although he did not have a warrant.
The letter said that according to the file, Compañia Faustina S.A., which belongs to the Grupo Eleta, represented by the firm Morgan y Morgan, requested an order of separation of the land of the plot 3499, of which incidentally Eleta does not have possession.
Faustina’s the land registration title indicates that the plot was separated from land belonging to Minerva Blacaneaux Quintero and her farm surrounds it.
Blancaneaux’s lawyers asked the judge to stop the process on the grounds that it is impossible to establish boundaries if Faustina did own the land, but he refused to throw out the case.
Surveyors from Faustina and Blancaneaux determined that the land that Faustina wanted to separate was inside the Gillingham’s property, exactly where their house, botanical garden and nursery is and miles away from where the Blancaneaux land is located.
The Gillinghams said that Judge Garcia is planning to enter their property again on March 27, accompanied by the Blancaneaux and Faustina representative, although they have clearly demonstrated that they have possession of the land.
The couple feel that they have been harassed and have invited neighbors, public in general and the media to go to their botanical garden on March 27 at 9:00 to witness the proceedings.

THE ELETA GROUP
The Eleta Group is formed by the powerful Eleta family with commercial interests in media, insurance, animal feed, racehorse breeding, and environmental protection to mention a few.
The group has property all over the country, but especially in the provinces of Chiriqui and Bocas del Toro.
The Eletas are part owners of the television radio network Medcom as well as Cable Onda.
For many decades the powerful Eleta family has exercised a great deal of influence in the country, developing prosperous companies and opening the first television station of the country.
The family is part of the wealthy Panamanian aristocracy and their members are involved in the arts and charitable organizations, but they keep their affairs out of the public eye and prefer to remain anonymous most of the time while directing their empire.
MARIJULIA PUJOL LLOYD

FACTS
The Gillinghams bought their land ten years ago, properly registered, but still that did not protect them against another company’s claim.
The boundaries of Faustina S.A. appear to be wrong, but nobody seems to have noticed that.
On the March 27 the matter will be solved one way or another

http://www.laestrella.com.pa/mensual/2009/03/26/contenido/80167.asp

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Clinton invested in Cayman tax haven companies

Even tax havens get "two for the price of one"...
On a more serious note, the article quotes several experts explaining the futility of pretending to save on U.S. taxes by investing offshore.

.

Clinton's Burkle Ties Include Funds in Cayman Islands
(Update1)

By Timothy J. Burger and Ryan J. Donmoyer
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton's decision to reconsider a business relationship with California billionaire Ron Burkle reflects concern those financial dealings may embarrass his wife's presidential candidacy.
Securities and Exchange Commission documents and financial- disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton show that Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. LLC.
In 2004, Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, said she wanted to close the ``loopholes'' for ``people who create a mailbox, or a drop, or send one person to sit on the beach in some island paradise and claim that it is their offshore headquarters.''

The former president's possible decision to move away from Burkle ``is all tied up with the laws of appearance and the politics of perception,'' said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. ``The world being what it is, people are attracted to the spouse of somebody with political power. The level of potential conflict is just that much higher with a former president and a senator who would be president.''
Moreover, added Fowler, ``with this particular couple, somehow, the whole story doesn't come out except in dribs and drabs.''
Bloomberg News last month submitted a list of questions to the Clinton campaign regarding the former president's involvement in the three Caymans-based funds. The campaign didn't respond to the queries until Dec. 13, after the New York Times reported that Clinton plans to dissolve his five-year partnership with Burkle, a longtime friend and important fund-raiser for both Clintons.
`An Appropriate Transition'
Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman, said that while the former president hasn't ``severed ties'' with Yucaipa, he ``is taking steps to ensure'' that ``there will be an appropriate transition for those relationships'' if his wife receives the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Carson, in an e-mail, said the funds are designed for foreign investors. ``All three of these entities (which are related) are organized in the Cayman Islands so that each investor or partner pays the taxes they would owe in their home country,'' he said. ``For U.S. citizens like Bill Clinton, that means he pays U.S. taxes on his income from this fund, which he does.''
Disclosures
The disclosures that Hillary Clinton, 60, is required to make as a lawmaker and candidate show that her husband has holdings in three Burkle-controlled funds -- YGOF GP Ltd., Yucaipa Global Holdings and Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund LP -- all listed at Yucaipa's Los Angeles address. An October filing with the SEC by Burkle, Yucaipa's lead partner, names YGOF as a Cayman Islands corporation and the latter two as Cayman Islands partnerships.
The amounts disclosed by Hillary Clinton are minimal, though a person familiar with the matter confirmed a report last year in The New York Times that Bill Clinton stands to make tens of millions of dollars with little risk if the Yucaipa funds he is involved in profit beyond a certain level.
Forbes Magazine listed Burkle, 55, as the 91st richest American this year, with a net worth of $3.5 billion.
`More Attractive'
Paul Roth, an attorney with Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP in New York, said companies that organize outside the U.S. often do so because ``it's more attractive'' to foreign investors, who can ``make sure they're not subject to U.S. taxation.'' Foreign registration may also make it easier for U.S. tax-exempt entities such as pension funds to invest ``in certain strategies,'' he said.
These tax benefits -- which are legal and common practice for many investment firms, particularly hedge funds -- have drawn attention from lawmakers and candidates.
In a Dec. 13 debate, Hillary Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, said that as president he would crack down on corporate loopholes and tax savings, particularly those involving offshore transactions.
``There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses, supposedly, 12,000 U.S.-based corporations,'' Obama said. ``That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world. And I think we know which one it is.''
Not Deferred
Roth said U.S. law makes it difficult for Americans to avoid taxes on payments from offshore, though some hedge-fund managers use such entities to defer U.S. taxes on their compensation. A measure passed last week by the House would ban this practice. Obama, 46, was a Senate co-sponsor of the provision when it was introduced in February.
Carson said Bill Clinton's payments from Yucaipa aren't deferred and the former president pays tax on that income in the year in which it is earned.
Steven Howard, a partner at Thacher Proffitt & Wood LLP in New York who advises investment firms, said private-equity firms such as Yucaipa often compensate advisers with a stake in the company rather than salary. ``In Clinton's case, he may be allocated equity instead of significant cash for services rendered,'' Howard said.
Carson didn't respond to questions about whether Bill Clinton receives this form of compensation. Howard said equity allocations are taxed at the 15 percent capital-gains rate instead of as ordinary income, which is taxed at rates as high as 35 percent. He said the same benefit applies to so-called carried interest, a profit-sharing arrangement used by fund managers that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have criticized and vow to curb.
Difficult to Assess
The realized value of Clinton's holdings in Yucaipa hasn't been disclosed and such stakes are typically difficult to assess until they are disbursed. Funds such as Yucaipa are privately held and aren't normally required to disclose details to regulators.
Hillary Clinton's Senate financial-disclosure records only say that Bill Clinton's Yucaipa assets were valued at less than $2,002 in 2006, while he received between $1,202 and $3,500 in interest that year. In the 18 months between January 2006 and June 2007, the value of the assets grew to between $1,001 and $15,000, and Bill Clinton received between $6,002 and $17,500 in interest, according to financial records filed in connection with the senator's presidential candidacy.
Bill Clinton has also received ``over $1,000'' a year in ``guaranteed payments to partner'' from Yucaipa Global Holdings and a predecessor fund. The government forms don't require lawmakers to specify an exact amount for spouses.
Campaign Questions
Bloomberg's questions to the campaign involved the nature and amounts of his compensation from Yucaipa, why the holdings were listed as Los Angeles-based rather than Cayman Islands entities, and when Hillary Clinton became aware that the funds were offshore. Carson didn't address those questions. Yucaipa spokesman Frank Quintero referred all questions about the former president's role to the Clintons' spokespeople.
Bill Clinton's ties to Yucaipa have sparked controversy over the past year, including a September report in the Wall Street Journal that detailed how one of the former president's aides had helped arrange a partnership with Burkle that dissolved amid litigation over allegations of misused funds.
Fortress
The former president isn't the only person in the campaign with links to funds in the Cayman Islands. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, was a senior adviser to Fortress Investment Group Inc., a New York-based private-equity and hedge-fund manager, and reported at least one asset, the Investments Fund III (Fund D) LP, that was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 2004.
Edwards, who was the first candidate to criticize tax preferences for the private-equity industry, also pays taxes as if the money was earned in the U.S., spokesman Eric Schultz told the Washington Post in May. Schultz said Edwards, 54, ``believes offshore tax shelters are wrong'' and ``will end them'' if elected. The Edwards campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment today.
Separately, the Los Angeles Times reported today that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate, used shell companies in at least two offshore havens while running Bain Capital LLC, the Boston-based private-equity firm. Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told the Times there was nothing improper about the registration of funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and that Romney didn't defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes. Madden didn't immediately respond to calls seeking comment today.
When he left the White House in 2000, Bill Clinton reported assets of more than $1 million and legal fees of more than $2.4 million. In his wife's most recent disclosure, Hillary Clinton reported that the couple now has a net worth estimated at between $17.4 million and $53.7 million.
Both now claim to be uneasy about their place among the richest Americans. This ``new experience,'' Hillary Clinton said during a debate Oct. 30, isn't ``one that makes us very comfortable.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Timothy J. Burger in Washington at mailto:Tburger2@; Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at mailto:rdonmoyer@. Last Updated: December 17, 2007 10:45 EST

Full text in: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aiQEVoQ5nt5E&refer=home

Monday, April 6, 2009

BBC News: British and Chinese tax havens excluded from G-20 list

Ministers have claimed that the Isle of Man has escaped being named on the G20 summit's blacklist of tax havens.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7981492.stm

he leaders of the G20 agreed to crackdown on tax havens. Now the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has published a list of countries not complying with international standards. The move has caused an uproar among some of the world's most powerful nations.
Richard Scott reports.

Switzerland eases bank secrecy

Switzerland, the world's largest offshore financial centre, has agreed to accept concessions on bank secrecy.

It is estimated that Switzerland's banks hold $2 trillion (£1.4tn) of global wealth held abroad.

Tax evasion change
The Swiss government confirmed that in line with OECD rules, it would now respond to overseas requests for information in cases of suspected tax evasion, and not just tax fraud.
WHAT IS A TAX HAVEN?
Low or no taxation
Lack of transparency
Refusal to provide information to foreign tax authorities
Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco classed as "uncooperative tax havens"
Source: OECD
The main difference between tax evasion and tax fraud is that the former is the deliberate concealing of assets, while the later also involves lying on official documentation.
Unlike most countries, tax evasion is a civil offence in Switzerland. Only tax fraud is a criminal matter.

Full text in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7941717.stm

Switzerland has agreed to accept concessions on bank secrecy and will now abide by international rules on bank data sharing but the Swiss government said it would only respond to "concrete and justified" requests.
Switzerland, which is the world's largest offshore financial centre, had risked being added to a global blacklist of uncooperative tax havens.
The Chancellor Alistair Darling told the BBC that the change was a "major move" for Switzerland.

Video http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7942955.stm

Friday, April 3, 2009

Panama stays out of list of non-cooperative centers

Following G20 OECD delivers on tax pledge

02/04/2009 - Following the G20 meeting and communiqué , the OECD Secretariat has provided a detailed report on progress by financial centres around the world towards implementation of an internationally agreed standard on exchange of information for tax purposes. The report available here consists of four parts:
• jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the internationally agreed tax standard.

• tax havens that have committed to the internationally agreed tax standard but have not yet substantially implemented it.

• other financial centres that have committed to the internationally agreed tax standard but have not yet substantially implemented it.

• jurisdictions that have not committed to implement the internationally agreed tax standard.
Welcoming the outcome of the G20 meeting, OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said “recent developments reinforce the status of the OECD standard as the international benchmark and represent significant steps towards a level playing field. We now have an ambitious agenda, that the OECD is well placed to deliver on. I am confident that we can turn these new commitments into concrete actions to strengthen the integrity and transparency of the financial system”.

OECD’s Future Challenges:
1. Achieving a rapid and effective implementation of standard: Many of these commitments will require legislative changes and the negotiation of specific bilateral agreements in order to become effective, and the OECD stands ready to assist jurisdictions in their implementation.
2. Speeding up the negotiations of tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs). Small tax havens lack the resources to enter into negotiations with a large number of countries. The OECD’s 2002 Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters sets out an option for multilateral rather than bilateral TIEAs that the OECD intends to explore over the coming weeks. The OECD is also examining how the Nordic experience of multilateral negotiations leading to simultaneous bilateral agreements could be adopted more widely.
3. Extending the scope and role of the OECD’s action: The OECD Global Forum currently encompasses more than 80 jurisdications and carries out self reviews and peer reviews to assess progress in implementation of the standard.The time has now come to re-examine the membership, the architecture and the role of the Global Forum in setting standards and evaluating progress. The Global Forum will undertake more robust reviews, to strengthen the implementation of the standard.

Full text in http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_34487_42496569_1_1_1_1,00.html

A PROGRESS REPORT ON THE JURISDICTIONS SURVEYED BY THE OECD GLOBAL FORUM IN IMPLEMENTING THE INTERNATIONALLY AGREED TAX STANDARD1

Progress made as at 2nd April 2009

Jurisdictions that have committed to the internationally agreed tax standard, but have not yet substantially implemented

Jurisdiction Year of Commitment Number of Agreements
Panama 2002 (0)

Jurisdictions that have not committed to the internationally agreed tax standard

Jurisdiction Number of Agreements

Costa Rica Malaysia (Labuan) Philippines Uruguay (0)

DECLARATION ON STRENGTHENING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM – LONDON, 2 APRIL 2009

Tax havens and non-cooperative jurisdictions
It is essential to protect public finances and international standards against the risks posed by non-cooperative jurisdictions. We call on all jurisdictions to adhere to the international standards in the prudential, tax, and AML/CFT areas. To this end, we call on the appropriate bodies to conduct and strengthen objective peer reviews, based on existing processes, including through the FSAP process.

We call on countries to adopt the international standard for information exchange endorsed by the G20 in 2004 and reflected in the UN Model Tax Convention. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of information. We welcome the new commitments made by a number of jurisdictions and encourage them to proceed swiftly with implementation.

We stand ready to take agreed action against those jurisdictions which do not meet international standards in relation to tax transparency. To this end we have agreed to develop a toolbox of effective counter measures for countries to consider, such as:
• increased disclosure requirements on the part of taxpayers and financial institutions to report transactions involving non-cooperative jurisdictions;
• withholding taxes in respect of a wide variety of payments;
• denying deductions in respect of expense payments to payees resident in a non-cooperative jurisdiction;
• reviewing tax treaty policy;
• asking international institutions and regional development banks to review their investment policies; and,
• giving extra weight to the principles of tax transparency and information exchange when designing bilateral aid programs.
We also agreed that consideration should be given to further options relating to financial relations with these jurisdictions We are committed to developing proposals, by end 2009, to make it easier for developing countries to secure the benefits of a new cooperative tax environment.
We are also committed to strengthened adherence to international prudential regulatory and supervisory standards. The IMF and the FSB in cooperation with international standard-setters will provide an assessment of implementation by relevant jurisdictions, building on existing FSAPs where they exist. We call on the FSB to develop a toolbox of measures to promote adherence to prudential standards and cooperation with jurisdictions.
We agreed that the FATF should revise and reinvigorate the review process for assessing compliance by jurisdictions with AML/CFT standards, using agreed evaluation reports where available.
We call upon the FSB and the FATF to report to the next G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting on adoption and implementation by countries.
Full text in http://www.g20.org/Documents/Fin_Deps_Fin_Reg_Annex_020409_-_1615_final.pdf

London Summit – Leaders’ Statement
2 April 2009

1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, met in London on 2 April 2009.

15. To this end we are implementing the Action Plan agreed at our last meeting, as set out in the attached progress report. We have today also issued a Declaration, Strengthening the Financial System. In particular we agree:

• to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information;

Full text in http://www.g20.org/Documents/g20_communique_020409.pdf

Sources: Obama Plays Peacemaker in French-Chinese Smackdown Over Tax Havens
April 02, 2009 11:15 AM

Huma Khan-->
According to sources inside the room, President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.
In the finaly plenary session among the G-20 leaders, Sarkozy and Hu were having a heated disagreement about tax havens.
France and other European nations have been pushing for rules and regulations to apply to various tax havens; Germany's Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has said "these tax havens are also places where unregulated financial market deals are made."
But Chinese leaders fear a crackdown would hurt banking centers in Macao, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Other countries agree, though they are less outspoken publicly.
The exchange between Sarkozy and Hu got so heated, said a source -- who is not a member of the Obama administration -- it was threatening the unity of the G-20 leaders' meeting.
"They were going through the revised draft," a senior Obama administration official said.
The issue: Sarko wanted "a list of non-compliant jurisdictions," tones that allow tax havens, he senior official said. "Other countries wanted it too, but (Sarkozy) was the most outspoken."
Sarkozy specifically was pushing for a list from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to be included in the G-20 Leaders' Statement.
Headquartered in Paris, the OECD has 30 member countries -- all capitalist democracies.
China opposed any such list being included in the final Leaders' Statement.
"China tends to have a problem endorsing the documents of organizations like the OECD that they're not a party to," the senior administration official said.
But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.
Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.
So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.
"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."
The agreement: the final G-20 document would state that the G-20 nations "stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information."
The Obama administration official described this compromise as a "meeting in the middle." The word "note" -- as in "we note the OECD has today published a list" -- doesn't necessarily carry any weight.
Moreover, any sanctions are "future-oriented," the senior official said, meaning there are as of now no actual sanctions.
The OECD also has yet to publish any such list, though Obama adminstration officials said the organization would do so today.
Soon after Mr. Obama helped to resolve the problem, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that "we have agreed to tough standards for those (tax shelters) who don't come into line in the future," which seems to overstate the case.
"I'd suggest we'd still be in there had he not done this," the senior Obama administration official said.
-- jpt

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/source-obama-pl.html

Panama case leads to lawsuit in Boulder court

Panama case leads to lawsuit in Boulder court
Suit: Ex-business partner falsely kept man in 'hellish' prison
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)

Friday, January 18, 2008
Photo by Joshua Lawton
Bobby Hammond, of Lafayette, spent six months in a Panama jail after a business partner had him arrested.

A Boulder man who spent six months in a Panamanian prison has sued his former business partner, a Marshall woman who had him imprisoned when a land-development deal went south in 2006.
Robert Hammond and his girlfriend, Tamara Pace, are seeking unspecified damages against Kim Opler. The suit alleges Opler used Panama's corrupt legal system to keep Hammond in prison over what should have been a civil matter -- and that she knew the charges against him weren't true.
Opler didn't return a call seeking comment Thursday.
Hammond's legal problems stemmed from a partnership he formed with Pace and Opler to develop properties in Bocas del Toro, a booming beach community near Panama's border with Costa Rica. The partnership between the couple and Opler soured, and Opler told the Camera in 2006 that Hammond and Pace stonewalled her attempts to recover the money she'd invested in several properties.
In early January 2006, Hammond was thrown into prison. He wouldn't be released until July of that year. At the time, Opler said Hammond hadstolen her property and needed to cooperate.
"It's a bummer, isn't it?" she said. "But what you need to know is that this is not just something where for no reason, out of the blue, this is happening to him, and he's sitting there suffering for no reason."
But Hammond and Pace said no charges were ever brought against him. He was eventually released and allowed to return home.
The six months he spent in a hellish prison were devastating to his physical and mental well-being, Hammond said Thursday. He slipped and fell in the shower early in his incarceration, breaking his collarbone. He said he never received proper medical treatment, and the pain continues today.
"I can't sleep on my right side," he said. "With my shoulder the way it is, I can't stop thinking about it."
The lawsuit -- filed this week in Boulder County District Court -- contends that at the maximum-security prison where he stayed, Hammond was "housed with convicted killers and persons associated with the cartel drug lords." The prison has been criticized in U.S. State Department reports that said prisoners face unduly harsh conditions, including water shortages.

Hammond said he had to fight for basic necessities at the prison such as food, water and a bunk to sleep in.

"I wouldn't want anyone to end up there," he said. "It's the most inhumane situation I've ever seen -- much less had to live through."
Hammond's girlfriend was also detained briefly and later released. Pace spent the next year campaigning for Hammond's release from prison and later to have him taken off of house arrest. She said deciding to sue wasn't easy, but she and Hammond need justice.
"I think Bobby needs some vindication," she said. "His reputation is damaged all over town, people are wondering if he really stole a million dollars. And he wants people to know that he didn't."

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jan/18/panama-case-leads-to-lawsuit-in-boulder-court/

--- In Panama_laws_for_expats@yahoogroups.com, "likitikitoo" wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:40 am
My self and my boyfriend were arrested last week by PTJ in our home. This
was over a business dispute that at most should have been a civil case. My
Boyfriend, Bobby Hammond, as well as myself were charged with Aggravated
Fraud. I was released with all charges dropped after 32 hours. Bobby was
working with a Boulder Colorado resident, Kim Opler for the last three years
purchasing and developing properties in Bocas. They never had a contract
and there is disagreement about comissions. Until the disagreement was
settled the titles, which were in Bobby's name, were not signed over to Ms.
Opler as she requested. In Ms. Opler's statement her attorney, Nelson
Carreyo, stated that he attempted to reach Bobby about this and couldn't. We
were never presented with any documents to sign.
Previously, we had received threats, both in Panama and Colorado, from her
partner, Dana Gaffin who already has a record in North Carolina for
Harrassing Communications as well as Violence Against Women. He had
also broke into our home in Bocas, stole our private property
to use as his own and threatened our employees.

Bobby is now in a maximum security facility with deplorable conditions. I am
asking for help from anyone in any form. This is not a criminal matter, much
less punishable by imprisonment. There has been no hearing date set. There
has been no bond amount set. Our embassy, which was very helpful in
securing my release has not helped with Bobby's case. Going over the names
on this list, many of you know Bobby and me. I hope you also know that there
is no way we could be guilty of this. If you have any suggestion please write or
call my cell, 011 507 XXXX. Thanks, Tammy Pace.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Panama_laws_for_expats/message/906

Jailed over a contract dispute: Bobby Hammond's and Tammy Pace's story

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Economist: The G20 and tax - Haven hypocrisy

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13382279

Finance and economics

The G20 and tax

Haven hypocrisy

Mar 26th 2009 | BERLIN
From The Economist print edition

Big economies are leaning on offshore tax havens. But greater abuse may be taking place at home

MONEY launderers are moved by greed, unlike Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University. Yet with a budget of $10,000 and little more than Google (and the ads at the back of this paper), he showed how easy it was to circumvent prohibitions on banking secrecy, forming anonymous shell companies and secret bank accounts across the world. In doing so he has uncovered an uncomfortable truth for many of the leaders of Group of 20 nations meeting on April 2nd to discuss, among other things, sanctions against offshore tax havens. The most egregious examples of banking secrecy, money laundering and tax fraud are found not in remote alpine valleys or on sunny tropical isles but in the backyards of the world’s biggest economies.

Panoramic Images

Wyoming, the Switzerland of the Rocky Mountains

At issue is not banking secrecy as the Swiss once knew it, where discreet men in plush offices promised to take the names of their clients to the grave. This is a more insidious form of secrecy, in which authorities and bankers do not bother to ask for names, something long outlawed in offshore tax centres such as Jersey and Switzerland but which has persisted in America. For shady clients, this is a far better proposition: what their bankers do not know, they can never be forced to reveal. And their method is disarmingly simple. Instead of opening bank accounts in their own names, fraudsters and money launderers form anonymous companies, with which they can then open bank accounts and move assets.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in America. Take Nevada, for example. Its official website touts its “limited reporting and disclosure requirements” and a speedy one-hour incorporation service. Nevada does not ask for the names of company shareholders, nor does it routinely share the little information it has with the federal government.

There is demand for this ask-no-questions approach. The state, with a population of only 2.6m, incorporates about 80,000 new firms a year and now has more than 400,000, roughly one for every six people. A study by the Internal Revenue Service found that 50-90% of those registering companies were already in breach of federal tax laws elsewhere.

A money-laundering threat assessment in 2005 by the federal government found that corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven.

Change may be coming in America, but slowly. In March Senator Carl Levin proposed a law forcing states to identify the beneficial owners of corporations. “For too long, criminals have misused US corporations to hide illicit activity, including money laundering and tax fraud,” said Mr Levin. “It doesn’t make sense that less information is required to form a US corporation than to obtain a driver’s licence.”

Yet a similar bill introduced last year died a quiet death in committee.

America is not the only rich nation Mr Sharman tested. He tried to open anonymous shell companies and bank accounts 45 times across the world. These were successful in 17 cases, of which 13 were in OECD countries. One example was Britain, where in 45 minutes on the internet he formed a company without providing identification, was issued with bearer shares (which have been almost universally outlawed because they confer completely anonymous ownership) as well as nominee directors and a secretary. All was achieved at a cost of £515.95 ($753).

In other cases Mr Sharman formed companies by providing no more than a scanned copy of his driving licence. In contrast, when trying to open accounts in Bermuda and Switzerland, he was asked for documentation such as notarised copies of his birth certificate. “In practice OECD countries have much laxer regulation on shell corporations than classic tax havens,” Mr Sharman concludes. “And the US is the worst on this score, worse than Liechtenstein and worse than Somalia.”

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views.

Dirk Gently wrote:

April 2, 2009 8:06

The article seems to provide useful tips for anyone wanting to hide wealth. I only wish I were wealthy enough to take advantage of it!

However, some comments here have suggested that the article is misleading and that the USA (for example) is less of a tax haven than it implies. I don't know the truth of the matter, but I suppose we shouldn't believe everything we read, even in The Economist.