Monday, May 14, 2012
Changes to Panama foundation taxes
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Panama Attorneys advise investors forming joint venture for energy projects in West Africa
Attorneys Lombardi Aguilar Group advised a group of West African investors entering a joint venture to develop hydrokinetic water projects
Panama City, Panama – Attorneys Lombardi Aguilar Group (www.laglex.com) served as Panama counsel for MRS Holdings Ltd. (www.mrsgroupng.com) in their joint venture to develop hydrokinetic water projects.
Nigeria-based MRS Holdings Ltd., entered through their Panamanian subsidiary into a joint venture with renewable energy company Hydro Alternative Energy, Inc. (HAE) to develop hydrokinetic energy projects in West Africa. The arrangement follows the previously announced binding letter of intent between HAE and MRS to secure and develop such hydrokinetic water power projects in the West Africa region.
HAE and MRS formed Natural Energy Solutions (NES), a Panamanian corporation, which plans to enter into power purchase agreements for developing hydrokinetic water power projects in West Africa. NES will be headed by select senior management from both the HAE and MRS organizations.
NES plans to advance the terms and conditions of a MoU from mid-October between a prior MRS subsidiary, since assigned to NES, and the Cameroon’s Ministry of Energy and Water Resources. The MoU entails feasibility studies to be undertaken for the development and operation of facilities for the production of tidal electric power, and for the Cameroon government to facilitate access to and grant certain exclusivity rights with respect to the project sites that will be selected as part of the feasibility studies and construction of electricity generation facilities to be undertaken.
MRS is headed by its President and major stockholder, Sayyu Dantata, an established businessman and entrepreneur who, in 2008, steered MRS' acquisition of the Chevron operation in West Africa. Mr. Dantata stated, "We are likewise very pleased to formalize our partnership with HAE, and are fully committed to making our relationship a success and providing West African countries with low cost, clean, renewable hydrokinetic energy for their electricity needs."
Lead attorney for MRS' Panama counsel was partner Dr. Jorge Lombardi, a graduate of Universidad Santa Maria la Antigua (LLB) and University of Paris (3eme cycle, DED). The team included associate Carlos Abrego and counsel Rodolfo Espino. Abrego and Espino are graduates of University of Panama (LLB) and have taken courses at National University of Singapore (LL.M.) and Tamkang University, Taiwan (Political Systems), respectively.
About Lombardi Aguilar Group
Lombardi Aguilar Group is a partnership of consultants created as an alternative for clients worldwide who seek fast, innovative and effective solutions to their legal problems. The firm currently provides services to individual and corporate clients in Panama as well in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Its partners maintain a commitment with professional ethics and social responsibility by participating in the board of directors of groups such as the Panama Bar Association, the Alliance Francaise, the German and the American Chambers of Commerce (AMCHAM) of Panama, and the Association of Chinese-Panamanian Professionals (APROCHIPA).
The firm centers its law practice in private client services and asset protection (Private Interest Foundations, Trusts), business structures (Offshore Corporations), tax planning, real estate and e-commerce. It also advices in areas of Law such as Corporate, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Maritime, Tax, Environmental and Immigration Law as well as related litigation.
For more information, contact +507 340-6444, e-mail info (at) laglex.com, or see: Lombardi Aguilar Group http://www.laglawyers.com/
# # #
--- end --- Visit Press Room
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Are offshore structures for you?
Private Interest Foundations
The private foundations were born some years ago in Panama , in order to give the offshore users a new approach, a more civil and familiar approach.
They have the same Tax and Registry principles, but with a civil oriented system.
The foundations can sign and negotiate commercial contracts eventually and they are not subject to income tax when the income was produced outside Panamanian territory.
The Panama Private Foundation (hereinafter known as PIF) has its origins in the Law 25 of 1995, which in turn was inspired in the PGR or better known as the “Liechtenstein Persons and Company Act”, which contains one of the first references to the private non profit foundations. In Panama, this and the most recent innovations in the Anglo-Saxon Trust enabled the creation of the Private Foundation utilizing the best features and characteristics of both worlds.
A PIF is a legal entity that can be created by either a natural person or a corporation that later transfers part or all of his/her assets to the Private Foundation so they can be managed and protected in favour of the Beneficiaries.
Among the features of the Panamanian Private Foundations we find:
- Quick registration 24-72 hours;
- They provide a fiduciary structure for the orderly transfer and disposition of assets to beneficiaries upon the death of the Founder, keeping control of the assets during lifetime;
- They may be established to have effects from the date of their constitution or after the death of the Founder; According to Law 25 of 1995, inheritance laws that apply in the domicile of the Founder or the Beneficiaries, shall not be effective against the Foundations assets nor may these laws affect the validity or performance of the Foundations objectives;
- Foundations are established to carry the specifics goals set out in the Foundation Charter and may additionally undertake sporadic commercial activities, exercise rights pertaining to their holdings, own property, contract obligations and take part in administrative or judicial proceedings.
- A Private Interest Foundation should be established with a patrimony destined to fulfill its objectives, which shall be no less than US$10,000.00.
- Said patrimony may be increased by additional contributions of the Founder or third parties and does not have to paid in part or in full before the incorporation;
- The assets of the Foundation become legally independent and do not form a part of the private estate of the Founder. Such assets are not sizeable and may not be subject to any precautory action or measure, unless such action or measure pertains to obligations incurred or damages arising from the fulfillment of the Foundations objectives.
Notwithstanding the creditors of the Founder or of a third party shall have the right to contest the contribution or transfer of assets to a foundation when such transfer constitutes an act in fraud of the creditors. The rights and actions of such creditors shall lapse at the expiration of three (3) years, counted from the date of the contribution or transfer of the assets to the foundation was done.
According to article 27 of Law 25 of 1995, Private Interest Foundations are exempt from payment of any taxes, contributions, duties, liens or assessments of any kind arising from the acts of constitution, amendment or extinction of the same, as well as acts of transfer or encumbrance of the Foundations assets and the income arising thereof, when related to:
- Assets located abroad;
- Money deposited by natural or juridical persons whose income does not derive from a Panamanian source is not taxable in Panama for any reason;
- Shares or securities of any kind issued by corporations which income is not derived from a Panama source, or which are not taxable for any reason, even when such shares or securities are deposited in the Republic of Panama.
- The transfer of unmovable property, titles, certificates of deposits, assets, funds, securities or shares carried out by reason of the fulfillment of the objectives of the foundation or the termination of the same, in favor of relatives within the first degree of consanguinity or the spouse of the Founder shall also be exempted from all Panama taxes.
Among the most important uses of the Panamanian Private Foundations we find:
- Family and family office support
- For Tax purposes
- For the protection and management of assets
- For educational purposes Testamentary purposes
- For life annuity purposes
- For charitable purposes
- To receive and manage capital and titles
- For the purpose of serving as guarantee or collateral
- For the management of insurance.
We must comment that several or all uses mentioned above can be given to a particular PIF, there are no restrictions as to the objects or uses one PIF can be given. For example, one PIF can be created to protect assets, but also with a testamentary use or in any case, with all the above-mentioned uses. However, a PIF cannot engage in commercial or for profit activities as a day-to-day activity.
Panama
Panamanian offshore corporations are an easy vehicle to negotiate and close deals.
The simple and yet formal provisions of the Law, render the users to trust the system. The amendments necessary to close one deal are quickly done by registering them at the Public Registry Office, and since it is a government institution, the certificates and Apostilles are easy to obtain in order to sign a contract in a short period of time.
Directors of the companies do not necessarily have to be shareholders and vice versa. Panamanian companies are not bound to issue shares. Powers of Attorneys may or may not be registered in the Public Registry Office.
For over seventy five (75) years the Panamanian offshore corporations has been recognized worldwide as a suitable offshore vehicle and with the proper legal advice can be utilized in a diversity of structures to conduct international business, asset protection, and estate planning, among others.
Among the most important features of the Panamanian offshore corporations we can mention:
- Quick registration in 24 to 48 hours.
- The Panamanian offshore corporations can be registered notwithstanding the nationality of its directors or shareholders.
- The income produced by a Panamanian offshore corporations outside the territory of the Republic of Panama is exempt of paying Income Tax in Panama.
- The capital of the company does not have to be paid partially or fully at the moment of incorporation.
- There is no obligation to file annual reports, financial statements or sworn income declarations, always that the company does not generate Panamanian sourced income.
- Legal entities of any country can be appointed as directors, officer or shareholder.
- There is no obligation to undertake annual meetings of the Board of Directors or Shareholders.
- The directors and shareholders can meet in person, by Proxy, phone or by any other electronic means.
- Three (3) directors are required, either physical persons or legal entities of any nationality.
- The officers (usually a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer) not necessarily have to be directors and one person can occupy one or more or all offices.
- The officers can be either physical persons or legal entities.
- The shares can be issued in nominative or bearer form.
- In any case, the name of the shareholder is not required to be registered at the Public Registry, so confidentiality is ensured.
- The corporate books can be kept in any part of the world and can be managed by electronic files or program.
- A Panamanian offshore corporations can do transactions and own assets in any part of the world, without having the obligation to maintain assets in the Republic of Panama.
- The Panamanian offshore corporations can undertake any type of legal business activity in any part of the world.
- The use of the Apostille is permitted.
Among the most important uses of the Panamanian offshore corporations we can find:
- As a holding entity for shares, bonds, bank accounts, term deposits, investment projects or any other financial or commercial title.
- Owner of shares in other companies, be them Panamanian or foreign.
- Owner of property, such as apartments, lots, houses or any other asset, be them personal or real estate.
- Manager or promoter of international commercial transactions.
- International lease of aircraft, vehicles, machinery, vessels and others.
- Instrument to receive and deliver loans in cash or commissions for products and services.
- Marketing and promotion of products and services.
- Other financial or commercial activities.
Belize
Belize 's modern and up-to-date offshore legislation provides maximum flexibility in global asset protection and tax and investment planning.
Particular features of the Belize international business companies are:
- Registration is quite fast as you can have your company registered in one (1) hour.
- Conducts its trading and business outside of Belize.
- Tax exempt from, the payment of all forms of local taxation, the payment of stamp duties for transactions in respect of its shares and debt obligations or other securities.
- Absence of exchange control.
- Disclosure of the beneficial owner(s) is not required;
- share register may be inspected only by a shareholder;
- nominee shareholders and bearer shares are permitted;
- assets are protected from confiscation or expropriation orders or similar actions by foreign governments.
- Security and Confidentiality.
- Only the Memorandum and Articles of Association are required for public records;
- the registration and deregistration of Registers of Directors, Members, and Mortgages and Charges is optional.
- No minimum capital is required.
- No audit of accounts is required.
- No filing of annual returns is required.
- Only one shareholder and one director are required, who may be a legal entity.
- No company secretary is required.
- No annual general meeting is required, meetings may be held outside of Belize , and attendants may be present therein by telephone or other electronic means.
- Shares may be issued with or without par value and in any currency.
- Re-domiciliation into and out of Belize is permitted, registration in any foreign language is permitted.
Additional reporting compliance may be required from entities doing business with local clients inside said jurisdictions, as well as from shareholders and/or beneficiaries resident in some jurisdiction. Advice from a tax attorney and accountant in your country of citizenship and residence must be sought before using offshore entities.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
International Business Opportunities
An electronic payment company and an expert in secure, real-time electronic transactions, the company has a license from the Ministry of Commerce of Panama to handle large numbers of small remittances in Panama and internationally, as well as bank accounts approved at Panama banks. Money sent home by migrants in remittances - of US$300 million yearly - constitutes the second largest financial inflow to many developing countries, exceeding international aid. The company also provides stored value card and credit card solutions to businesses, government, consumers and financial institutions with security, efficiency, and competitiveness, while reducing their costs.
Assets include US$50,000 in Panama bank required by law to maintain the remittance license.
Investment requirement: US$150,000
More information about remittances in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance
http://remittancesgateway.org/
http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/
1998 BVI ready-made shelf company
A 12-year old British Virgin Islands International Business Company with nominee directors and nominee shareholders is for sale. Price includes payment of reactivation fees.
A seasoned BVI company offers...
1. Credibility with Financial Institutions as a result of its age, a BVI company can establish relationships easier with major financial institutions such as banks, brokers, and credit card companies to secure more favorable terms for your operations.
2. Credibility with Clients by leveraging the credibility of a vintage BVI company, you will position yourself as the owner of a successful business vehicle.
3. Credibility with Partners and Competitors the pedigree, age and descent of a seasoned BVI company create 'a micro climate' for its operations inspiring respect and admiration from both business partners and competitors.
Investment requirement: US$20,000
More information about BVI companies in http://www.bvifsc.vg/
High-yield private placements
Placements available to high end, accredited investors supported by a combination of high yield and short term investments. These private placements yield substantially higher returns than
bank certificates of deposit, most corporate bonds and mortgages. The company has a flawless payment history and stability without the inconsistency of the mortgage markets, bonds backed by real estate or hedge funds. Short term instruments (two years or less) provide guaranteed yields of 10% - 12% per annum
Rates of Return: One Year = 10% per annum (Two Payments of 5%).
Two Years = 10.25 % per annum (Four Payments of 5.125%). Semi-Annual Distributions.
These are unregistered, uninsured securities and are appropriate for sophisticated, accredited investors only who meet qualification standards and minimum net worth requirement. This Information is not an Offering or a Solicitation to Buy or Invest under any Securities Act.
Minimum Investment: $150,000 (USD) or equivalent, in any major currency.
Small Caribbean bank for sale
Ideal for acquisition, significant shareholding, joint venture by a family office or Trading Group wishing to monitor control of their funds or by another bank. The Bank itself is run by a small number of staff with good contacts built over a period of time.
Acquisition price for 100% of the Bank is $3.5 million.
Merchant Accounts for Credit Card Processing
Merchant Accounts by banks in Belize, Cyprus and Germany, offer Credit Card Merchant Processing to foreign companies. Companies should consider Electronic Commerce as an "added value" to its particular means of making business, since it will receive unlimited advantages from a market that opens the doors to a world with endless possibilities and, what is better, to potential customers.
The electronic commerce offers our customers the advantage of selling their products and services through Internet, using the most advanced technology allowing the globalisation of their company.
Subject to full due diligence and compliance with know-your-customer rules.
Minimum Investment: $20,000
More information about merchant accounts in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_account
For further information about these opportunities, email serious inquiries to info@ uspanamatrade.org
The information listed was provided by the promoters of each investment opportunity. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is correct, we accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for any errors or omissions. This material is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute investment or other professional advice. We accept no responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on this information and we make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the availability of any product or service in any country. This information should not form the basis of any decision as to a particular course of action; nor should it be relied on as investment advice.
The information contained herein is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would result in requiring any registration requirement within such jurisdiction or country. It is the responsibility of such persons or entities to ascertain the terms of, and comply with, any local taxes, laws or regulations.
More information available by email to mailto:aaguilar%20@%20nysbar.com or Skype
Friday, August 7, 2009
New Panama legislature enacts tax moratorium
The new Panama administration of President Ricardo Martinelli has taken its first major tax initiative by enacting Law 45 of 2009 whereby a moratorium is granted for payment of national taxes collected by Directorate General of Revenue (www.dgi.gob.pa). Under the law, taxpayers are exempt from paying surcharges, interest and fines on unpaid taxes due by June 30, 2009, if they pay at least 30% of said taxes and agree to pay the rest before September 1 within a period of 6 monhts. Tax payment plans signed after September 1 but before December 31 still would qualify for a exemption of fines and 75% discounts on surcharges and/or interest.
Such a tax plan would benefit owners of corporations and private interest foundations formed in Panama who must pay a US$300 annual tax called "Tasa Unica". While Panama corporations and private interest foundations doing business outside of Panama do not have to pay Panama income tax, they still have to pay the US$300 annual tax. Article 318A of the Tax Code also imposes a US$50 fine for every annual tax paid late and a US$300 surcharge after 2 years of delay in payments. Article 3 of the 2001 Supreme Court of Justice Schedule for Legal Services further provides every year for a US$250 Resident Agent Fee and a US$150 nominee director fee.
Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia (www.laglex.com) partner Alvaro Aguilar AlfĂş finds the moratorium to be useful for investors using Panama entities. "Even if the names of corporate shareholders and private foundation beneficiaries are disclosed to their resident agents under privacy rules, changes in the charter and board of directors must be registered with the public registry. Local laws require that all annual tax payments be up to date when filing said changes, so the moratorium would allow owners of these entities to save on the fines and surcharges which would otherwise have to be paid after 2010," said Aguilar.
The moratorium also covers property taxes due for ownership of real estate at rates of up to 2.1% of the registered value. "Unlike other countries, Panama authorities do not mail or deliver tax statements so property taxes - along with surcharges, fines and interest - may be accumulating without the owner knowing," Aguilar points out. "Many foreign buyers have purchased real estate in Panama, either directly or by purchasing shares of landholding companies or foundations, so this is a good time to ask the local Panama tax office for a statement to pay taxes due without fines and ask counsel in their country of origin about other tax compliance and filing requirements".
About Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia
Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia was created as an alternative for clients worldwide who seek fast, innovative and effective solutions to their legal problems. The firm currently provides services to individual and corporate clients in Panama as well in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Its partners maintain a commitment with professional ethics and social responsibility by participating in the board of directors of groups such as the Panama Bar Association, the German and the American Chambers of Commerce (AMCHAM) of Panama, and the Association of Chinese-Panamanian Professionals (APROCHIPA).
The firm centers its law practice in private client services and asset protection (Private Interest Foundations, Trusts), business structures (Offshore Corporations), tax planning, real estate and e-commerce. It also advices in areas of Law such as Corporate, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Maritime, Tax, and Immigration Law as well as related litigation that may arise.
This release has been prepared for information purposes only. It is not intended to be nor do they constitute legal advice, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For more information, contact +507 340-6444, e-mail aaguilar (at) nysbar.com, or see: Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia http://www.laglex.com/
###
Receive press releases from Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia: By Email
RSS Feeds:
See also Property tax exemption for 20 years #3 property tax.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
NY Assistant DA: “U.S. financial transparency: trying to catch up to Panama.”
Foreign law enforcement authorities even refer to certain states as “offshore U.S. jurisdictions.” And when asked, I am hard-pressed to define why these well-known states are any different from Cayman or the British Virgin Islands. The Committee should also know the imprimatur of respectability that a certificate of incorporation from a U.S. state carries with it, and the access it gives a foreign citizen to open bank accounts and engage in all manner of business, both legitimate and otherwise. And, for many foreign persons wishing to hide their income in an “offshore jurisdiction,” there is no need to turn to a Caribbean hide-away. In one case where we rendered assistance to foreign prosecutors, we were able to connect the head of a foreign central bank to an “offshore” Delaware corporation. He used the corporate entity to open a bank account in Florida. He used black market money systems (prosecuted in New York) to move funds to this secret account he held in Florida. By obtaining a corporate entity, this corrupt official could rest assured that his funds would be safe in the United States, and his name would not easily be linked to the corporation. I am hard-pressed to find a difference between his use of a Delaware corporation to open a Florida bank account and the use by a U.S. taxpayer of a Lichtenstein corporation to open a Swiss bank account. At the end of the day, both systems provide a security blanket of anonymity for those who seek it.
Examining State Business Incorporation Practices: A Discussion of the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act
Thursday, June 18, 2009 02:30 PM Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342 The hearing will examine the impact of the "Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act," S. 569, which would create a minimum standard--and greater transparency--for the ownership information businesses have to provide to states when they form a business.
Member Statements
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman [View PDF]
Witnesses
Panel 1
Janice Ayala [view testimony] Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Shasky Calvery [view testimony] Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Elaine F. Marshall [view testimony] Secretary of State State of North Carolina
Adam S. Kaufmann [view testimony] Assistant District Attorney for New York County State of New York
Harry J. Haynsworth [view testimony] Chair, Drafting Committee on Uniform Law Enforcement Access to Entity Information Act Uniform Law Commission
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=ef10e125-2c1d-4344-baf1-07f6061611c1
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Former FINCEN agent says : US shell companies - It's time to end the hypocrisy
John Cassara is an expert in anti-money laundering and former FINCEN agent. In his blog he points out that finding beneficial owners of U.S. companies can be as difficult as in more famous offshore jurisdictions.
Bill S. 659 Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act is meant to improve record keeping of beneficial owners by State Divisions of Corporations, even though forming corporations is a state - not federal - power. Secretaries of State of Wyoming and other states have pointed out that they already complied with federal wishes to eliminate bearer shares and now they and small businesses are being asked to spend even more money in compliance.
Thursday, 26 March 2009 00:00 by John Cassara |
|
Over the last few years, I have worked in approximately one dozen developing countries helping police, customs, and security services recognize and investigate money laundering and terror finance. During discussion periods, I am inevitably asked the following question. "Mr. John, my agency has a financial crimes investigation and the money trail leads to the American state of Delaware. We can't get any further information and don't know what to do. Can you help us?" As a former criminal investigator representing the United States, this question is, frankly, embarrassing.
From a money laundering and tax evasion standpoint, Delaware is not the only American state that has troubling incorporation and limited liability company (LLC) structures. In 2006, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report, "Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available." (pdf) The report reviewed the legal requirements in all 50 states to set up corporations and LLCs, and found that most states failed to request beneficial ownership information. The GAO found that the absence of ownership information impeded law enforcement investigations of suspect corporations.
Some states seemingly compete against each other to see which can offer less accountability, less transparency, the most secrecy and, as a result, attract the most business and fees. Websites that offer incorporation services worldwide are touting US corporate secrecy. In transactions that can be completed over the internet in a few hours and for a few hundred dollars, corporations and LLCs can be formed in the US that provide many of the same secrecy provisions featured in traditional international tax and offshore havens.
US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) has followed the issue closely. According to Senator Levin, "States allow persons to form nearly two million corporations and LLCs each year in this country without knowing – or even asking – who the beneficial owners are behind those corporations. Right now, a person forming a US corporation or LLC provides less information to the state than is required to open a bank account or obtain a driver's license."
The United States routinely points to other countries' anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist finance (AML/CFT) shortcomings. It has played a major role over the years in identifying "uncooperative" countries and jurisdictions and placing these countries on formal and informal "blacklists." Yet the proliferation of defacto shell corporations on American soil spotlights hypocrisy and undermines US policy.
For example, as noted in the recently released 2009 State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) Volume II on Money Laundering, the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong each have nearly 500,000 international business companies (IBCs) registered in their jurisdictions. The INCSR states the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago plan to open "international financial centers," most of which offer the same services as offshore financial centers. In Panama, approximately 46,178 IBCs were registered in Panama in 2007. The INCSR continues that, "Panama has no requirement to disclose the beneficial owners of any corporation or trust; bearer shares are permitted for corporations; and nominee directors and trustees are allowed. The result is that illicit funds can be laundered and taxes evaded with little fear of detection and prosecution."
I am not an attorney skilled in the intricacies of international law, taxes, or finance. I don't understand the differences between LLCs, IBCs, IFCs, off shores, shell companies, and taxhavens. Maybe I am missing something. However, I know as a criminal investigator that following a dirty money trail to Delaware is about as difficult as following it to those jurisdictions criticized above by the US State Department.
When I was assigned to Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), I witnessed many requests for assistance from Egmont Group partner international Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that had investigations focusing on Delaware. There was not much we could do.
Domestic law enforcement agencies are equally stymied. For example, according to 2006 Congressional testimony, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that a Nevada-based corporation received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81m over two years. However, the case was not prosecuted because investigators could not identify the corporation's owners.
In 2008, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote to a Senate Subcommittee, "In countless investigations, where criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information, slows, confuses, or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds."
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has repeatedly criticized the United States for failing to comply with a FATF standard requiring beneficial ownership information.
Undoubtedly because company formations can be lucrative, nothing has been done. Perhaps things are about to change.
In March 2009, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R.-Iowa, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act to help law enforcement stop the misuse of U.S. corporations. Among its provisions, the bi-partisan Act (S.569) would require states to obtain a list of the beneficial owners of each corporation or LLC formed under their laws, ensure this information is updated annually, and provide the information to civil or criminal law enforcement upon receipt of a subpoena or summons. The Act would also require corporations and LLCs with non-US beneficial owners to provide a certification from an in-state formation agent that the agent has verified the identity of those owners.
As the Group of 20 prepares for a meeting in early April to try to improve global financial rules, there are reports that financial and tax havens of all sorts may receive scrutiny. As part of the process, I hope the United States is called to lift the veil of states' secrecy when it comes to corporate beneficial owners.
The current financial meltdown and a dangerous laxity in financial crimes enforcement should have taught us that we can no longer afford business as usual.
I suggest the American delegation at the Group of 20 headed by President Barack Obama should be guided by the following quote from then Senator Obama; "It's time for the United States to meet its international anti-money laundering commitments, and that means getting beneficial ownership information for US corporations."
Published in Complinet
S. 569, The Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act
S. 569 would ensure that persons who form corporations in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations for criminal gain, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_569.html
National Association of Secretaries of State Congressional Activity: News Release: North Carolina Secretary Elaine Marshall Testifies Before U.S. Senate on State Business Incorporation Practices (06/18/09) * Testimony * More Testimony: Kansas Nevada Wyoming * NASS Company Formation Task Force
Concerns About 5.569 by Max Maxfield Wyoming Secretary of State: While we understand the premise of S.569; and while we applaud Senator Levin for his desire to better protect our country, we have serious concerns that the passage of S.569 will set Wyoming back in our efforts to fight fraud. We have the following serious concerns.
1. Our greatest concern is that if the federal law passes, there will be serious attempts to rescind Wyoming's laws. The argument will be that as long as a company meets the federal law that should be enough.
2. IfWyoming's laws were to be rescinded, we would lose the key component of requiring a human being in our State TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPRESENTING THE COMPANIES THEY SERVE. We would be back to registered agents just being there for service of process, taking an otherwise hands off approach to the responsibility which they should shoulder.
3. If Wyoming's laws were to be rescinded, we would also lose the requirement that the registered agent have a contact person for each company they represent. We FIRMLY BELIEVE that a person leading you to another person is infinitely better than having paper on file. Fraudulent people file fraudulent paper; but a person face to face being held responsible generally knows of another person who can be contacted.
4. Whatever information is determined to be kept, it should be kept by the registered agent, not by government. This is a responsibility issue. States should not be taking the responsibility to know the players for each company; states are not forming these companies or using them for potential ill. Formation agents and the registered agents who are forming and making money off these companies (or the individuals themselves if the owner acts as his own registered agent) should be responsible for retaining and providing all required information. Without personal responsibility for the paper, the paper has very little value, except to make it APPEAR AS IF government is trying to locate the bad actors.
See also Levin - Obama Bill seeks to end confidentiality of US corporations
.
Letter criticizes bearer instruments in Panama, not in Wyoming or UK
Reporter Rafael Berrocal writes about the letter sent to the American Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-Panama Business Council by the current U.S. Ambassador Barbara Stephenson (Anonymity in Corporations is Criticized, La Prensa http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2009/06/25/hoy/panorama/ 1832992.asp). According to the report, the Ambassador wrote that bearer shares ensure anonymity of the owners of a Panama corporation. “The damage to the reputation for lack of transparency is higher than the speculative damage of maintaining a public practice”, when justifying the pressure by US Democrats on Panama to shut down its financial center and sign a tax information exchange agreement. She said that the US also faced this problem when prohibiting bearer shares.
Panama has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty for Criminal Matters which allows US authorities to demand cooperation from Panama judicial authorities in criminal cases (even if Panama authorities complain that US assistance to Panama requests is close to null). This includes requesting Panama authorities to demand from Panama lawyers to provide client records despite attorney-client privilege rules. However, this has proven to be insufficient for competitors of the Panama financial center. Doubts are prevalent among local practitioners that ending Panama bearer shares will even take the country out of the OECD gray list, where British Virgin Islands (BVI) and Bahamas are still listed after discouraging or eliminating bearer shares.
Bearer shares have proven to be like a gun with no bullets: banks do not open accounts for them, lenders demand that those bearer shares be pledged before disbursement and an “anonymous” shareholders loses his anonymity when he tries to enforce his rights in a Panama court (a “John Doe” shareholder cannot sue).
The bright side of the letter is that it shows the willingness of foreign diplomats to tackle issues which were considered meddling into another country's affairs. We just hope the same effort is displayed when tackling CORRUPTION by Panama judges used against US investors.
Those that still want bearer instruments can find them in the heart of the countries which criticize them: the Wyoming bearer scripts and the England LLC bearer shares.
Even though bearer shares are null in Wyoming after October 1, 2007, shares do not need to be issued and the Wyoming Business Corporation Act provides:
17-16-604.� Fractional shares.
(a)� A corporation may:
(i)� Issue fractions of a share or pay in money the value of fractions of a share;
(ii)� Arrange for disposition of fractional shares by the shareholders; or
(iii)� Issue scrip in registered or bearer form entitling the holder to receive a full share upon surrendering enough scrip to equal a full share.
(b)� Each certificate representing scrip shall be conspicuously labeled "scrip" and shall contain the information required by W.S. 17-16-625(b).
(c)� The holder of a fractional share is entitled to exercise the rights of a shareholder, including the right to vote, to receive dividends, and to participate in the assets of the corporation upon liquidation.� The holder of scrip is not entitled to any of these rights unless the scrip provides for them.
(d)� The board of directors may authorize the issuance of scrip subject to any condition considered desirable, including:
(i)� That the scrip will become void if not exchanged for full shares before a specified date; and
(ii)� That the shares for which the scrip is exchangeable may be sold and the proceeds paid to the scripholders.
This is similar to the blank transfer of suscription rights document, which Panama corporation founders sign in blank form to clients purchasing bearer shares.
Several Wyoming and UK incorporators advertise:
Wyoming Corporations
Why Use Wyoming Corporations?
There are many reasons why a Wyoming Corporation can be useful. The following is a list of some of these reasons.
Wyoming is a tax-free state, there is:
No corporate tax
No franchise tax
No inventory tax
No stock tax
No inventory tax
No personal income tax
No estate tax
No inheritance tax
No gift tax
Wyoming Does Not Share Information:
Wyoming is one of two states in the Union that do not voluntarily share information with the IRS or with any other state.
Wyoming Allows Bearer Shares:
It is one of two states that allows for bearer shares. Whoever holds bearer shares owns them. The stock does not need to be registered in anyone's name. In fact, in Wyoming it is not necessary to issue stock.
The names of owners or stockholders of Wyoming corporations are not a matter of public record. Only the officer’s names are made public. However, with creative planning you can remove your name as an officer or director. See Nominee Officer Services
Wyoming Allows Bearer Script:
A client can hold Bearer Script which can be redeemed for shares but the client is never required to own stock in the corporation. If asked if they own stock in a corporation, the client could state under oath that they did not.
Wyoming Protects Officers And Directors:
There is no personal liability. Wyoming indemnifies directors and officers from personal liability for act committed on behalf of the corporation or by the corporation.
Wyoming Annual Reports:
In Wyoming, as in Nevada, a corporation is required to list the names and addresses of Officers and director(s) when they file their annual report With the Secretary of State. All of these positions may be held by one person. International Registration Services, LC can provide a nominee to fill all of these positions, ensuring your complete privacy.
Wyoming does not require stockholders to register with the state. Because of this, you can own all the shares in the Corporation, maintain complete control of operations and designate representatives as your officers and directors. Your identity will be kept completely confidential.
Avoid Some Of Your Home State Taxes:
Have your Wyoming Corporation bill you for the services provided. The Wyoming Corporation will generally add some amount to the bill for its service costs and overhead. By doing this, you are able to transfer some of your profits to tax free Wyoming!
Example 1:
Have your supplier provide an invoice to your Wyoming Corporation for the products that you normally purchase. Let's say that the invoice is for $100,000. Your Wyoming corporation will pay the bill and bill your local company $150,000. You have just transferred $50,000 of your profits to tax free Wyoming. Major US corporations have used these tactics for years. Not only within the United States but worldwide.
Protect Your Substantial Assets:
When someone comes snooping around make sure there is no equity in your real estate.
Example 2:
Have the Wyoming Corporation put a lien on major assets such as your home, rental property, or business property.
International Registration Services, LC
WYOMING CORPORATIONS and LLCs have a tax haven within the United States with no income taxation,anonymous ownership and bearer shares. The annual upkeep costs less and you can issue as many shares as you want with no extra filing fee. We can help you set up banking for your Wyoming LLC or Wyoming corporation from your home state. Did you know that Wyoming invented the LLC? Numerous European companies as well as US companies have used the State of Wyoming for their Wyoming LLCs as well as for corporations. If you call we can tell you all of the similarities and differences between a Wyoming LLC and Nevada LLC. Click for details and pricing at $69 plus state filing fee. Please call us for any assistance or ideas.
Corp95.com
+ Wyoming protects corporations with the strongest laws and protects your privacy.
+ Wyoming requires only one person to form a corporation. You have total control.
+ Wyoming has close corporations with less rules and paperwork for small family run companies.
+ Wyoming was the first state to offer LLC's. Close LLC's are available. Perfect for a family LLC
+ Wyoming allows Bearer Shares, Nominee Officers and Lifetime Proxies. These can make you invisible.
+ Wyoming allows corporations to be transferred in from other states and still retain original incorporation date.
Wyoming EZ Corp
Ukincorp.co.uk Tax Haven UK - 2 - Bearer Shares August 2nd, 2007 Alistair Darling has said the UK is not a tax haven. That is not true. It is, using any reasonable definition, including that which I proposed recently. I’ve already suggested one obvious reason why it is, which is the existence of the domicile rule, so let’s take a second example that is less obvious. This is the fact that the UK allows the issue of bearer shares. This is deliberate. The right survived into section 779 of the Companies Act 2006. As one formation agent who seems to specialise in the more esoteric end of the market has noted, UK companies with bearer shares are ‘our most popular package with UK residents’ taxreasearch.org.uk |
Friday, June 19, 2009
Trail of Panama companies vanishes in Delaware
Title: Hearing Of The Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs - Examining State Business Incorporation Practices: A Discussion Of The Incorporation Transparency And Law Enforcement Assistance Act
Date: 06/18/2009
Location: Washington, DC
Show All StatementsShow Only Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's Statements Hearing Of The Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs - Examining State Business Incorporation Practices: A Discussion Of The Incorporation Transparency And Law Enforcement Assistance Act
...
Here's one example of what's going on. In 2004, one of our key law enforcement agencies, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, who's here today, uncovered a collection of U.S. companies that were secretly controlled from entities located in Panama. The investigation began when bank reports showed that a single company formed in Utah was participating in nearly $150 million in suspicious international wire transfers. Further investigation by ICE uncovered a network of nearly 800 U.S. companies dispersed among nearly all 50 states controlled by the same Panamanian entities. These companies were transferring large amounts of money to each other and to high- risk jurisdictions overseas. The companies claim they were paying for the importer-exported goods, but it turned out no such goods were being shipped.
In effect, the money transfers were part of a massive financial shell game in which U.S. companies were being used to disguise the movement of funds and to mask suspicious activity. When ICE obtained the incorporation records for the 800 U.S. companies, not one identified a company's true owner. After analyzing the available information, ICE found that nearly 200 companies had been formed in Utah and used the same company formation agent in a small office in a Salt Lake City suburb. That company formation agent also served as the company's registered agent within the state to accept service of process.
When questioned by ICE, the Utah registered agent indicated that he had formed the companies at the request of another company formation agent located in Delaware, did not have any beneficial ownership information, and believed that all were, quote, "shell companies" with no real business operations in the United States. The Delaware company formation agent was already well-known to law enforcement. No less than eight previous investigations had led to its doors, each of which involved millions of dollars in suspected money laundering by U.S. shell companies associated with the same Panama entities.
When questioned by ICE in the prior cases, the Delaware company formation agent had freely admitted that he knew some of the corporations he formed, or caused to be formed, were intended to move money out of Russia and some former Soviet republics. He also said that he sometimes sold U.S. companies to the same overseas buyer at the rate of 40 companies per month. When asked about the actual owners of the 200 Utah companies, the company formation agent was unable to provide law enforcement with any names, since that information was not required by law.
The end result was that the ICE investigation, like the eight before it, hit a dead end, unable to proceed due to the lack of beneficial ownership information. A hearing exhibit -- and it's in our books -- summarizes the case.
Now, Michael Chertoff, former secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, wrote the following: "In countless investigations where the criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information slows, confuses, or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds. This is the case in financial fraud, terrorist financing, and money laundering investigations. It is imperative that states maintain beneficial ownership information while the company is active and to have a set timeframe for preserving those records.
Here's another aspect of the problem. A few weeks ago, members of my staff conducted an Internet search and found numerous company formation agents advertising the sale of U.S. companies and trumpeting the fact that U.S. companies can be formed without disclosing the names of any company owner. One of the most blatant was Corporations Today, Inc., which advertises its ability to form U.S. corporations in nearly every state with minimal cost and effort. A copy of some of its Internet ads is presented in the two hearing exhibits, and the chart which I'm putting up here reproduces one of its advertisements, offering the sale of aged corporations, meaning companies which corporations today formed years earlier. One of the companies on sale for $6,000 is advertised as coming with four years of tax returns and an existing employer identification number, an EIN issued by the IRS.
Why buy an aged corporation? According to Corporations Today, quote, "obtaining bank loans may be easier when you can show you have history," close quote. So is, quote, "obtaining corporate credit cards and leases." The quote goes on. For example, "Dell Computers lease only to corporations six months old or more," close quote. They're selling aged corporations for a price, been in business allegedly for six months or more. So Dell is told, hey, this corporation's been in business for years, so we're now eligible to lease your product.
So the ad invites fraud. It enables hidden owners to pretend that they've had a corporation operating in the United States for years when they haven't. Despite mounting evidence of misconduct by U.S. shell corporations, despite Internet advertisements selling U.S. corporations with promises of anonymity, despite the years of law enforcement complaints, many of our states are reluctant to admit that there's a problem in establishing U.S. corporations with hidden owners. Too many of our states are eager to explain how quick and easy it is to set up corporations within their borders without acknowledging that those same quick and easy procedures enable wrongdoers to utilize U.S. corporations in a variety of ways, both here and abroad.
In 2006, the leading international anti-money laundering body in the world, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, known as FATF, issued a report criticizing the United States for failing to comply with the FATF standard, which requires countries to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws. FATF gave the United States two years until July of 2008 to make progress towards compliance with the FATF standard. Next week, FATF is scheduled to review U.S. actions on this matter. How can we possibly justify our failure to do what we have committed to do; obtain beneficial ownership information to the corporations formed within the United States?
Full text in http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=473634&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CHRG&bread=true

