Showing posts with label offshore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label offshore. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2011

London, the citadel of the offshore world

Why bother with black lists and immobilization of bearer bonds in BVI and other countries? You can get bearer shares from United Kingdom Limited Liability entities and be welcome by tax authorities and banks in most countries which have black lists copied verbatim from the France-based OECD.

The final irony is that Panama and the United Kingdom will start negotiations for a double-taxation agreement http://www.prensa.com/uhora/economia/panama-negocia-mas-acuerdos-para-dejar-de-ser-considerado-un-paraiso-fiscal/40666




LONDON, THE CITADEL OF THE OFFSHORE WORLD

The modern offshore company, which began its all-conquering journey in the islands which once formed the British Empire in the 1970s and 80s, can justifiably be described as an English invention. At that time, it was also possible to incorporate so-called "non-resident" companies in England, which, if managed from outside of the United Kingdom, were not subject to taxation in England, although even then London could never have been described as a classic offshore zone.

This possibility ended in the early 90s, but, England, and in particular, London remained an extremely popular place for the incorporation of companies, for both English and foreign businesses alike. Numerous businessmen chose to incorporate in London; Companies House now boasts a register with over three million companies, ranging from small business to multinational companies. So what makes people want to incorporate in London?

The tax advantages related to English companies

The above shows quite clearly that English companies cannot be categorized as traditional tax-free companies, and in fact they are quite the opposite. How, therefore, can English companies be used advantageously in international business transactions? The following section shows just two of the possible uses.

Trading company for nominee purposes.


Blacklists have meant problems for a large number of offshore companies, particularly those providing services. One very efficient way of overcoming this problem is by using an English company, which concludes a special contract with the offshore company, which may be incorporated in a traditional offshore zone such as The Bahamas, BVI or Belize. According to the terms of the contract, the English company concludes contracts with foreign partners on behalf of the offshore company, prepares invoices for the total amount of the services provided, and receives full payment into its bank account, although the offshore company actually provides the services. Periodically (as defined in the contract between the English and offshore companies), the English company is entitled to an agency fee of between 5 & 10 % of the value of the contracts concluded. The English company must declare this income and pay tax accordingly, whereas, the remaining 90-95 %, is transferred to the account of the offshore company, as set down in the contract. An offshore company is subject to tax in England on income with an English source. Although the offshore company operates through an English resident company, the actual source of the income is not England, but the foreign partner. At the same time, it is an important condition that the offshore company should be managed from outside England, and that the directors, shareholders and bank account signatories of the offshore and English companies should not be the same people.

Dual resident companies

An English company must be classified as resident in England if it was incorporated in England and/or the majority of the directors are resident in England and manage the company from England. However, according to the agreements made by England for the avoidance of double taxation (DDTs) it is possible for a company to be resident in two or more places, if, for example, it is managed from a different company. Such companies are known as "dual resident companies". As long as the company is managed from a country which is protected by a DDT, then the company can apply to the English tax authorities to be taxed in that country rather than in England. And if that country has more favorable rates of taxation, then it is worth operating the company as a dual resident company. Currently, the most attractive jurisdiction with which England has signed a DDT is Cyprus. According to Cypriot law, if a company, or a branch of that company, operates outside Cyprus, then that branch is subject to the 4.25% profit tax of the worldwide income. The English company becomes resident in Cyprus by establishing an offshore branch there. The majority of the directors of the English company must be Cypriots and all the decisions relating to the running of the company must also be managed from outside England, preferably from Cyprus. Similarly, the company must not receive income from English sources. This is all the more problematic as activities carried out in England are subject to VAT. Dual resident companies must file annual returns in both Cyprus and England, but can also take advantage of the DDTs signed by Cyprus.

This information is not intended and should not be construed as concrete tax advice. Should you wish to make use of one or any of the structures mentioned, we recommend that you consult your personal tax adviser, as well as experts on the legal systems of all the countries involved.

Source: LAVECO brochure. Extract posted with thanks to N. Remé (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, EJP).
Photo: UK Inland Revenue offices

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Societe Generale leaving Panama (again)

This the case of the bankers who cried "wolf".

Societe Generale with great fanfare announced that they were leaving Panama in 2010 because of its "tax haven" status. What the media had missed was that they already announced in 2002 they were leaving Panama because of the country being considered a tax haven. Somehow Panama was a market good enough to return after 2002, or each closure is an excuse to cover up bad management of the branch.

Of course, Panama News also concluded in 2002 that the "entire offshore financial services sector's days are numbered". After that "prediction" the Panama banking sector has excess liquidity up to the point that some banks reject non-resident clients.

Now the French authorities have declared that even after Panama signing a double-taxation treaty with France, the Isthmus is still a "tax haven".








Societe Generale leaving Panama

Citing special charges and delays imposed by other countrie on financial transactions that involve Panama, France's second-largest bank, Societe Generale, is closing its operations in Panama City's banking center. Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina and Peru all discriminate against transactions involving Panama, mainly because those countries have long experience with their public officials laundering the proceeds of corrupt practices here. Societe Generale joins UBS and ABN Amro Bank in the line of European financial institutions leaving Panama, and its departure is taken by some analysts as another sign that the entire offshore financial services sector's days are numbered.
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08/issue_14/business_briefs.html July 28-August 10, 2002







Societe Generale moves Mexico ops. to France - Mexico, Panama
France's second largest private bank in terms of assets Societe Generale has decided to manage its Mexican customers' accounts from France rather than from its Panamanian branch, Societe Generale Panama CEO Celestin Cuq told Panamanian daily La Prensa.
Mexico charges a 15% tax on operations conducted through Panamanian banks, yet Mexico and France have a mutual tax waiver agreement, so it makes sense for Societe Generale to serve its Mexican clients from France, despite Panama's offshore status.
Fellow European banks UBS and ABN Amro also pulled out of Panama in 2001 for the same reason. However, Cuq said Societe Generale would maintain a representative office in Panama because it is of strategic value for securing business in Central America and the Caribbean.
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/banking/Societe_Generale_moves_Mexico_ops,_to_France Published: Friday, July 26, 2002 14:15







SOCIETE GENERALE : La SocGen examine des "anomalies" sur un compte de Singapour
Tous les articles PARIS, 1er avril (Reuters) - La Société Générale enquête sur des "anomalies" trouvées dans le compte d'un client supervisé par l'un de ses banquiers privés à Singapour, a déclaré jeudi un porte-parole de la banque.
Ce dernier n'a pas donné de précision sur la nature de ces anomalies mais il a dit qu'elles avaient été détectées en février et que la banque avait immédiatement informé les clients qui pourraient être concernés.
Il a ajouté que la banque faisait son possible pour résoudre la question rapidement dans l'intérêt de sa clientèle.
La banque a engagé en mars Benedikt Maissen, un ex-responsable de la Barclays, pour ses opérations en Asie.
Benedikt Maissen, 50 ans, rendra compte à Pierre Baer, responsable des opérations de banque privée de la Société Générale à Singapour et en Asie méridionale.
(Sudip Kar-Gupta, avec la contributioon de Wilfrid Exbrayat, édité par Jean-Michel Bélot)
http://www.investir.fr/infos-conseils-boursiers/actus-des-marches/infos-marches/la-socgen-examine-des-anomalies-sur-un-compte-de-singapour-239387.php 01/04/10 à 16:04 - REUTERS 0 commentaire

Former Societe Generale Trader Goes on Trial
Trial began Tuesday for a former trader accused of brining losses of 5 billion euros (5.95 billion U.S. dollars) to the French bank Societe Generale SA (SG).
About 50 witnesses were expected to be called in the three-week trial of Jerome Kerviel, who is charged with forgery, breach of trust and unauthorized computer use. Kerviel faces five years in prison as well as a fine of 375,000 euros (448,000 dollars), if convicted.
In addition, his former employer Societe Generale would demand a sum of 4.9 billion euros (5.83 billion dollars) in compensation for damages, SG lawyer Jean Veil told the Sunday paper Le Journal du Dimanche.
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2010/06/08/1461s575490.htm 2010-06-08 19:52:40 Xinhua Web Editor: Zhang Jin

Friday, June 24, 2011

Ras al Khaimah opens its RAK Offshore center



Located in the United Arab Emirates, one of the fastest growing economies of the world, the emirate of Ras Al Khaimah (RAK) has quickly developed into a booming international center. Renowned for its lack of taxes and its minimal bureaucratic red tape, Ras Al Khaimah has attracted thousands of businesses, large and small, to relocate and take advantage of its economic opportunities. Now, RAK Offshore has made it possible for nonresident corporations, entrepreneurs and individuals worldwide to enjoy all the incentives that were previously available only to resident entities.


Headquartered in the up-and-coming Ras Al Khaimah City, the RAK Investment Authority, a government entity, allows a wide variety of financial activity and provides the perfect conditions to consider an offshore corporation through its regularity body, RAK Offshore.
At RAK Offshore, our raison d’être is to help your business succeed. From the very outset, RAK Offshore was conceived to allow its clients an easy, cost-effective means to unleash their entrepreneurial spirit, by starting and operating an offshore business.
RAK Offshore offers businesses and individuals alike an expansive range of services, structures and investment policies that are dedicated to nonresidents. RAK Offshore also benefits from one of the most comprehensive lists of non-double taxation treaties in the world, including treaties with China, India, Italy, France and Germany.

Nonresident Business and Individuals
International Business Companies RAK Offshore presents an ideal location for international business operations and asset protection schemes. If you are looking for an free zone in the Middle East where you can register your LLC or GmBH with little cost or hassle, RAK Offshore is your answer.
Maritime Activities RAK Offshore offers open registry of yachts, private boats, and, in the near future, vessels.


Outsourcing
With its proximity to the major economies of the Middle East and its strategic location between the economic hemispheres of the East and the West, RAK lies in the perfect geographic location for a new business. In addition to its ready access to a flexible, multicultural, multilingual and highly skilled workforce, RAK Offshore becomes the ideal choice for outsourcing businesses looking for accounting, auditing and other back-office operations.
Offshore Non-Financial Businesses You can register International Business Companies bearing the status of Ltd., GmBH, Ltda or SA at RAK Offshore.
Trusts There are a variety of trusts you may consider, including the following: General Trusts, Discretionary Trusts, Vesting Trusts, Educational Trusts, Employee Trusts, Spendthrift Trusts, Asset Protection Trusts & Grantor Trusts.
Charitable Trusts & Foundation As the owner of an operating business, you can continue to maintain control over your company by setting up a Corporate Special Trust.


Offshore Banking
RAK Offshore takes special care to give small and medium enterprises the ability to move their business offshore through the creation and application of dedicated instruments. A few resulting benefits realized for your business are the following:
Asset Protection & Planning
Confidentiality of execution
Tax planning
International Visibility
No Exchange Control
Access to a Superb Communication and Banking Infrastructure
Choice of outsourcing
Creative and genuine portfolio of dedicated services
Property ownership of nonresidents in UAE free zones
Compliant with the best international standards for anti-money laundering.








If you need to form your RAK company or trust, contact us through our website, by email, Bitwine or Skype

panalex@BitWine
My status
.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Using your RAK company



Registrar of Companies

The Registrar of Companies functions as the production unit of RAK offshore and is responsible for establishing business relationships, incorporating offshore companies through licensed registered agents, and ensuring all rules and regulations are strictly adhered to. The Registrar of Companies will handle all matters related to the aforementioned, including:

  • Process applications for incorporation of new companies and deliver certificate of incorporation with registration number
  • Perform due diligence on the individuals (directors, members, etc.) who are part of the incorporated company.
  • Verify the names of companies at incorporation
  • Collect various fees and fines
  • Deliver certificates, duplicates, or other documents as per the law
  • Maintain the physical registry
  • Update the Register of Companies as needed










Information AT-A-GLANCE





























































































































International

Business Companies



Shareholders

  1. Minimum





  2. Residencyrequirements





  1. 1 shareholder





  2. No requirements



Share Capital

  1. Minimum authorized



  2. Minimum issued



  3. Bearershares



  4. Redeemable shares



  1. Nomínimum requirement



  2. 1 share





  3. No



  4. Yes



Beneficialownership disclosure



Not required to disclose to the UAE government, but must be disclosed to a registered agent

Directors

  1. MinimumNumber





  2. Residency requirements





  3. Corporate Directors



  1. 1 director





  2. No requirements





  3. Yes

Local

presence requirements



  1. Directors



  2. Company officers



  3. Meetings



  4. Annual

    general meeting



  5. Audit requirements









  1. Not required





  2. Not required



  3. Not required



  4. Not required





  5. Not required (unless requested by the RAK Financial Services Authority for suspicion of criminal activity)

Annual

accounts

Possibility

of migration

Yes,

but not public accounts



Yes

Share

transfer duty/tax

None

Special

mention on the name

Ltd.,

Sociéte Anonyme, GmbH, Ltda…








If you need to start your RAK company contact us through our website, by email, Bitwine or Skype



panalex@BitWine

My status







Thursday, November 18, 2010

Say goodbye to your BVI bearer shares on December 31, 2010



Many users of British Virgin Islands (BVI) International Business Companies are not aware that by December 31, 2010 they must have turned in their bearer shares to an authorized custodian. An additional tax of One Thousand Dollars (US$1,000) and a custodian fee must be paid every year. Alternatively, shareholders can amend the company charter to prohibit bearer shares and replace any bearer shares for shares made out to a nominee.


Resident Agent / Offices of British Virgin Islands (BVI) Companies are required to remind customers to comply with the BVI BC Act 2004 in relation to bearer shares and the possible consequences of not complying with the new regime which took effect from January 1, 2010.
The consequences for companies that did not comply with the new regime of bearer shares, as confirmed by the BVI regulator, include among others:
- the loss of all rights which a shareholder may have as such("disabled bearer shares") .
- The payment of the cumulative difference between the rate applicable to government companies without bearer shares and the new government rate for companies with bearer shares in custody.
- Fines by the BVI Financial Services Commission (BVI FSC) for breach of the law.
BVI Service providers and Resident Agents reserve themselves the right to provide services such as restoration, change of registered agent, amendments to the charter and articles of association of companies, or to sign documents for companies with disabled bearer shares.
As for companies which nominee director services are provided, information of the new shareholders must be provided, in order to prepare the necessary documentation and to comply with the requirements of the law. Nominee directors who do not receive said information on time, are likely to resign as directors of these companies.
For more information on BVI companies see :
BVI INternational Financial Center www.bviifc.gov.vg/







7 May 2004
PRESS RELEASE

BVI PREPARES TO IMMOBILISE BEARER SHARES
ENCOURAGES APPLICATIONS FOR “CUSTODIAN” STATUS FROM JULY

The BVI is poised to take a major step in July towards immobilising bearer shares by starting the applications procedure for custodians of bearer shares.
New legislation will ultimately require all bearer shares in BVI International Business Companies (IBCs) to be held by a custodian and thus immobilised. Companies formed before 1 January 2005 will have until 31 December 2010 to comply.
Companies formed after 1 January 2005 must comply from their date of formation.
To enable custodians to be in place by 1 January 2005, the BVI Financial Services Commission will consider applications to act as custodians from 1 July 2004.
Those eligible to apply as an “authorised” custodian will be service providers licensed under any BVI financial services legislation, as well as bodies corporate incorporated or formed outside the BVI that are not resident in, and do not have a place of business in, the BVI.
Those eligible to apply as a “recognised” custodian will be investment exchanges or clearing organizations that operate securities clearance or settlement systems in a jurisdiction which is a member of the Financial Action Task Force.
All applicants to be “authorised” custodians will have to satisfy the Financial Services Commission that they meet certain “fit and proper” criteria and have the necessary systems in place for safe custody of their bearer shares.
For bodies corporate, the Commission will consider the prudential regulation and anti-money laundering regulations with which the bodies have to comply.
The Commission may attach conditions to its approval and vary or revoke these.
To assist potential applicants for custodian status, the Commission has issued a new Aide Memoire, entitled, Criteria for Approval of Authorised Custodians of Bearer Shares of BVI Incorporated Companies. Besides setting out the criteria the Commission will use when approving custodians, the Aide Memoire addresses, inter alia, the duty of custodians and the grounds on which the Commission may revoke approvals.
Commenting on the new bearer shares regime, Robert Mathavious, Managing Director and CEO of the Financial Services Commission, said, “These measures enable the BVI to comply with all international standards, including the 40 anti-money laundering recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force. They are the result of close cooperation between the BVI private sector, government and regulator. The Commission encourages all potential custodians to apply from 1 July.” NOTES TO EDITORS 1. The Aide Memoire is available on the Financial Services Commission’s website at www.bvifsc.vg 2. The International Business Companies (Amendment) Acts of 2003 and 2004 provide the legal framework for immobilising bearer shares. The Acts are due to come into force on 1 January 2005.
3. The Financial Services Commission (Amendment) Act of 2004 addresses the regulatory framework for immobilising bearer shares, in particular the rules governing custodians. It is due to come into force on 1 July 2004.
4. IBCs will be able to amend their Memoranda of Association to state that they are authorised to issue only registered shares and that these may not be exchanged for bearer shares. They will be required to file this statement with the BVI Registrar of Companies, along with a declaration that they have no bearer shares in issue.
5. The new rules are the result of extensive consultation with BVI service providers. They are based on the recommendations of a private sector panel that the Financial Services Commission convened to examine the issue.
6. Although the IBC (Amendment) Act of 1993 envisaged a deadline for immobilisation of bearer shares of 31 December 2004, the private sector panel recommended a seven-year transition period before the new legislation took effect. A further IBC (Amendment) Act of 2004 gave effect to this recommendation, setting a new deadline for immobilisation of 31 December 2010.
7. Most of the 500,000 IBCs registered in the BVI currently have the power to issue bearer shares. Whether they have in fact issued these and have bearer shares outstanding is not certain.
8. Bearer shares are not unique to BVI IBCs. They are widely used in Europe by non-listed companies and are also popular in Latin America, the Far East and some US states.

http://www.bvifsc.vg/Default.aspx?tabid=134




If you need a Resident Agent or Custodian for the bearer shares of your BVI company, contact us through our website, by email, Bitwine or Skype

panalex@BitWine
My status

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.




Contact Us through our website, by email, Bitwine or Skype

panalex@BitWine


My status

Thursday, August 12, 2010

US citizens face penalties when failing to report their offshore accounts

Kevin Mullin: Ramifications of U.S. Crackdown on Foreign Tax Havens
By Kevin Mullin, JD, CPA, LLM (Tax)

Compelled by the current recession to raise revenues from all quarters and emboldened by reports of thousands of U.S. taxpayers with unreported foreign accounts, the current administration is moving to crack down on rogue U.S. taxpayers with investments stashed abroad.


While the UBS scandal has attracted the most publicity, leading to the discovery of thousands of unreported accounts held by Americans, Switzerland is not the only focus. The Internal Revenue Service recently announced the opening of its first criminal investigation office in Panama and the agency is targeting far-flung jurisdictions which permit bank-secrecy, as well as tax havens around the world.

This has a direct impact on the thousands of U.S. taxpayers investing in real estate outside of the U.S., who often use a foreign bank, financial account, corporation, partnership or trust to take title to the property. They provide a convenient cash management account from which to make such investments or meet expenses of ownership. But they don't necessarily shield owners from IRS scrutiny, as the U.S. account-holders of UBS have found out.

Most U.S. taxpayers with international investments are likely aware that they are required to declare income earned from all sources located anywhere in the world, but many are not aware of the extensive reporting requirements on foreign accounts and investments, regardless of whether they generate any taxable income. Nor are many investors aware of the draconian penalties that attend their non-compliance.

Besides the obvious obligation to report income, there are extensive requirements for the owners (or constructive owners) of such accounts to report transfers and ownership of foreign corporations and trusts, as well as ownership or signature authority over foreign financial accounts.

While many of these reporting requirements have been on the books for years, the focus of the U.S. on enforcing them has been, until recently, pretty half-hearted. But now the IRS is pursuing this arena with vigor.

The administration's efforts culminated earlier this year with amnesty program for U.S, taxpayers with unreported income from foreign accounts--an admission that providing amnesty might bring new sources of revenue, which would otherwise simply burrow deeper underground. The amnesty program allowed qualified U.S. taxpayers with unreported income from foreign accounts to generally be relieved of criminal sanctions, although they would still be subject to back taxes, interest and civil penalties.

The announcement of the amnesty program, which ended on Oct. 15, triggered an avalanche of disclosures that have overwhelmed IRS staff. In its wake, a plethora of proposed legislation has been introduced aimed squarely at bringing a spotlight to the offshore arena.

Hereafter, the gloves are off and U.S. taxpayers who are discovered to have unreported income from foreign accounts should not expect a conciliatory attitude on the part of the IRS. For those U.S. taxpayers with foreign-source income and financial accounts, the requirement for obtaining competent legal counsel and accounting advice could not be more critical to their overall tax compliance efforts.

The following is a summary of the reporting requirements and potential civil penalties that could apply to a taxpayer, depending on their particular facts and circumstances. Note that serious criminal penalties with financial, as well, as incarceration possibilities are also possible for willful infractions. And if the IRS discovers non-compliance prior to the taxpayer providing information on a voluntary basis, the opportunity of pleading ignorance or inadvertence will likely fall on deaf ears and the likelihood of a criminal investigation increases.

A short summary of some of the compliance requirements:

  • A penalty for failing to file the Form TD F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an �FBAR�). U.S. citizens, residents and certain other persons must annually report their direct or indirect financial interest in, or signature authority (or other authority that is comparable to signature authority) over a financial account that is maintained with a financial institution located in a foreign country if, for any calendar year, the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the year. Generally, the civil penalty for willfully failing to file an FBAR can be as high as the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the total balance of the foreign account. Non-willful violations are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each account and for each year that the account is unreported.
  • A penalty for failing to file Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts. Taxpayers must also report various transactions involving foreign trusts, including creation of a foreign trust by a U.S. person, transfers of property from a U.S. person to a foreign trust and receipt of distributions from foreign trusts. This return also reports the receipt by U.S. persons of gifts from foreign entities. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns, or for filing an incomplete return, is 35 percent of the gross reportable amount, except for returns reporting gifts, where the penalty is five percent of the gift per month, up to a maximum penalty of 25 percent of the gift.
  • A penalty for failing to file Form 3520-A, Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner. Taxpayers must also report ownership interests in foreign trusts, by U.S. persons with various interests in and powers over those trusts under section 6048(b).The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns or for filing an incomplete return, is five percent of the gross value of trust assets determined to be owned by the U.S. person.
  • A penalty for failing to file Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Person with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Certain U.S. persons who are officers, directors or shareholders in certain foreign corporations (including International Business Corporations) are required to report information. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is $10,000, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return.
  • A penalty for failing to file Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation. Taxpayers are required to report transfers of property to foreign corporations and other information. The penalty for failing to file each one of these information returns is ten percent of the value of the property transferred, up to a maximum of $100,000 per return, with no limit if the failure to report the transfer was intentional.
  • A penalty for failing to file Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. U.S. persons with certain interests in foreign partnerships use this form to report interests in and transactions of the foreign partnerships, transfers of property to the foreign partnerships, and acquisitions, dispositions and changes in foreign partnership interests. Penalties include $10,000 for failure to file each return, with an additional $10,000 added for each month the failure continues beginning 90 days after the taxpayer is notified of the delinquency, up to a maximum of $50,000 per return, and 10 percent of the value of any transferred property that is not reported, subject to a $100,000 limit.


Kevin Mullin is a tax attorney with more than 20 years experience in international tax and estate planning services. With offices in Denver, Co., and McLean, Va., he can be reached at http://www.intl-taxlaw.com/. He also maintains representative offices in Latin America and the Middle East to support his professional and client relationships globally.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Panama Attorneys Advise Offshore Hedge Fund

Panama Attorneys Advise European investors forming Private Investment Fund



Attorneys Lombardi Aguilar Group advised a group of European investors to file before the Panama securities regulators a notice of compliance with private investment fund provisions.

Panama City, Panama ---- Attorneys Lombardi Aguilar Group (http://www.laglex.com/) advised a group of European investors to file before the National Securities Commission (http://www.conaval.gob.pa/ - CONAVAL) of Panama a notice of compliance with private investment fund provisions. CONAVAL is the local securities regulator.



A private investmend fund is a type of financial investment company which generally exempt from most securities regulations and laws and are included under the label of "hedge funds". As a form of transparency for investors, Panama's Law Decree 1 of 1998 allows private investment funds to file their prospectus, background information about their managers and other corporate documents before the local CONAVAL regulator, as long as the company charter provides that: (1) the number of owners of quotas or investors is limited to a maximum of fifty (50) and any offers may be made only through private communications; (2) securities can only be offered to qualified purchases and with minimum investment amounts of USD100,000. The filing does not amount to a registration with the Commission and these funds are not subject to the supervision or scrutiny by the Commission.



The fund is an open-ended private investment fund based in and managed from the Republic of Panama. The main purpose of the Fund is to invest in privately-issued shares of international asset management companies and other similar companies (distributors and/or managers of funds, securities brokers, etc.) outside of Panama. According to corporate documents, the company has a capital is of 30 million euros. Its board of directors has Swiss members and two partners of Lombardi Aguilar Group serve as external directors.




Following the local Panama securities laws, the Fund is professionally-managed by another company incorporated in the Republic of Panama which has in place proper risk management, monitoring and internal control procedures. Such risk management process enables the management company to monitor and measure, at any time, the exposure of the investment positions and their contribution to the overall risk profile of the fund portfolio. The Panamanian regulators will require the Management Company to certify in each annual report of the Fund that the procedures and controls for monitoring the management and risk of the Fund are still in place as defined in the Prospectus filed with the Commission.






Current regulations allow the fund to:


a. maintain liquidity in different currencies;


b. issue fully-covered currency options;


c. place deposits with a bank licensed in a foreign jurisdiction;


d. invest in money market instruments or debt securities such as government or international bonds, U.S. Treasury bills, bank certificates of deposit, banker acceptances, floating rate notes, commercial papers, asset-backed securities and repurchase agreements;


e. enter into deliverable or non-deliverable currency forward contracts;


f. invest in privately-issued shares of international asset management companies and other similar companies (distributors and/or managers of funds, securities brokers, etc.).



Dr. Jorge Lombardi, a partner at Lombardi Aguilar Group commented that "we were recommended by colleagues in Switzerland to create and manage this fund, because of previous succesful experience". The legal expertise of the firm and its ability to provide counsel in several languages of the investors was crucial to its selection for this assignment. "My full knowledge of the Italian language was very useful as well as a tool to have a better and fluent communication with the clients", said Lombardi. "The beneficiaries of the fund are in Europe and our correspondents are in Lugano, Switzerland, and after a series of conversations they were convinced that Panama was the place to create it, and that our firm provided the security, confidentiality and confidence they needed". Lombardi is a graduate of Universidad Santa Maria la Antigua (LLB) and University of Paris (3eme cycle, DED).


About Lombardi Aguilar Group
Lombardi Aguilar Group is comprised of Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia and other professionals. The Group 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 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, and Immigration Law as well as related litigation that may arise.


For more information, contact +507 340-6444, e-mail info (at) laglex.com, or see: Lombardi Aguilar Group http://www.laglex.com/


Keywords: Panama, offshore, hedge funds, private investment companies
http://www.prlog.org/10815190

###




Subscribe to press releases from Lombardi Aguilar Group:
RSS Feeds:
Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia laglex.com on LinkedIn





See also Official Gazette
.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Panama - a trust jurisdiction in a Civil Law region


.

PANAMA – A TRUST JURISDICTION IN A CIVIL LAW REGION

Panama is traditionally considered a Civil Law jurisdiction like the rest Latin America where judges construe the law as stated in Codes. However, its long relationship with the United States makes it an exception in a region where laws originate from French Civil Code. As of this day:

  • the U.S. Dollar is currency of legal tender since 1904,

  • the 1917 law of commercial paper is based on the U.S. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law,

  • the 1927 corporation law is based on the law of Delaware of the time,

  • trusts may be formed since 1925.

The original 1925 law was changed in 1941 and finally its current version of Law 1 of 1984. Its main features are:

1. Simplicity of execution: Trust deeds may be granted by private document, granted by the settlor before a Notary Public anywhere in the world.

2. Contractual freedom: A settlor can grant a deed with any clauses or distribution plans as long as they are not contrary to law, morality or public interest. This extends to allow the possibility of post-mortem distributions different from those of the settlor's estate laws or forced heirship rules. The law also allows practitioners to draft trust deeds for execution of Sharia-complaint trusts or appointing a protector as a limit to trustee powers.

3. Duration: The duration of the trust can be indefinite, which represents a change from the rule against perpetuities in the previous 1941 law.

4. Confidentiality: Trust deeds do not need to be made public by their registration (unless real estate in Panama is being settled). The trustee and its employees are subject to a duty of confidentiality. Breaches of said duty are subject to imprisonment or monetary fines.

5. No citizenship requirements: Individuals or entities of any country can serve as settlors, trustees or beneficiaries. None of the parties need to be Panamanian, except for the attorney which serves as resident agent.

6. No trustee requirements: Any capable person or entity may serve as trustee and does not need to be authorised by a government authority, unless they market themselves as such on a regular basis. Trustees serving as commercial custodians may seek to apply for a trustee license from the Superintendent of Banks in which case the trustee is subject to quarterly reporting, capital adequacy ratios and know-your-customer rules similar to those of banks.

7. Charitable or for-profit purpose: Trust provisions may appoint a general class of beneficiaries or unborn beneficiaries. Alternatively, trusts may also serve for commercial transactions, such as securitization of receivables or other assets.

8. Revocability option: Trusts are irrevocable by default, unless parties decide otherwise.

9. Separate patrimony: Trust assets are deemed as separate from assets of the settlor and trustee. Therefore, creditors of the settlor1 or trustee – such as commercial creditors or inheritance creditors in probate cases - cannot seize assets settled. Trust assets may be seized for liabilities incurred or damages caused from the performance of trust or by third parties when assets have been transfered or withheld by fraud.

10. Low local taxation: Income earned from assets located abroad or funds held in any bank in Panama are exempt from local Panama taxes. However, legislation from the countries of residence or citizenship of the settlor or trustee may impose additional tax obligations.

11. Minimum reporting requirements: Trusts without assets in Panama or not earning income in Panama are exempt from having to file tax returns or financial statements. Trustees are required to render account of their performance to the beneficiaries and maintain a duty of care under the bonus pater familiae standard.

Conflicts of Laws

The trust is subject to Panama law once it is stated in the trust deed. However, parties may agree to settle disputes under foreign law.

Disputes by default are resolved by Panama courts under a summary procedure with a shorter evidentiary stage. Parties may agree to have controversies settled by arbitration or before foreign courts.

Panama trusts may be transferred to another country when the trust deed allows so.

Foreign trusts may be subject to Panama law, as long as the trustee alone or jointly with the settlor, states so.

Foreign trusts are subject to Panama law, when enforcing their rights in court.2

Panama is not a member of The Hague 1985 Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition. Panama courts have cooperated in international service of process under international comity rules, but strictly enforce confidentiality and trust privilege granted by trust law3. National treatment is granted to nationals under Bilateral Investment Treaties (with U.S. and other countries) and Free Trade Agreements (Singapore and – pending ratification by Congress - U.S.).

1A vehicle held in trust by a trustee company for the benefit of its driver, cannot be seized by a government-owned bank to satisfy consumer debt of said driver. Decision of March 2, 2004, by Supreme Court of Justice – Administrative Section, Case 281-08.

2When a will granted in Panama by a St. Kitts national which appointed a St. Kitts & Nevis trust as heir. The trustee of the Nevis trust – not the trust itself - was held to be the rightful representative of the heir, because both Panama and St. Kitts trust laws consider the trust to be a relationship between settlor, trustee and beneficiary but not a separate entity in itself. Decision of May 4, 2007, by First Superior Tribunal of Justice, In re Estate of Wilson Charles Lucom.

3Two Panamanian principals of a BVI trustee company may answer the deposition requested by Polish authorities through exequatur but not provide copies of the trust documents. Decision of December 30, 2004, by Supreme Court of Justice – General Affairs Section, Case 110-04.




See also:
Should You Use an Offshore Entity?
US forms required for Panama trust and other non-US entities

Oct 15 is last day to report offshore accounts


A message from the IRS to those US taxpayers who have not disclosed offshore accounts...

Taxpayers Have Until Oct. 15 to File Extended 2008 Tax Returns; Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Also Due

IR-2009-87, Oct. 1, 2009

Listen to an Audio File for Podcast Watch a Video







Deadline nears for Special Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Oct. 15 is the deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with assets in previously undisclosed offshore financial accounts.

Under the special provisions issued in March, taxpayers with these accounts originally had until Sept. 23, 2009, to come forward. Those taxpayers who do not voluntarily disclose their accounts by Oct. 15 face harsh civil penalties, where applicable, and possible criminal prosecution.

Tax professionals or individuals who want to initiate a voluntary disclosure should call their local IRS Criminal Investigation office. Individuals or their representatives may either contact the nearest Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, stating their wish to make a voluntary disclosure, or provide a letter outlining information needed to assist the IRS in determining their acceptance into the voluntary disclosure program.

See the Voluntary Disclosure page on IRS.gov for more details.

Taxpayers with questions on the offshore issue may also call the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Hotline (215-516-4777) .



On September 21, 2009, the IRS announced a one-time extension of the September 23, 2009 deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with unreported income from hidden offshore accounts. Taxpayers now have until October 15, 2009. There will be no further extensions.
The September 23, 2009, deadline for certain FBAR filers and certain offshore-related information returns who have no unreported income is also extended to October 15, 2009. All other guidance included below may still be relied upon. For more specific information regarding the voluntary disclosure of offshore accounts and FBAR filings, see the related items below:

News Release IR-2009-84 and Overview of the Voluntary Disclosure Program





























News Release



English



Chinese





Korean



Russian



Spanish



Vietnamese



Overview



English



Chinese






Korean



Russian



Spanish



Vietnamese



Related Items:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

NY Assistant DA: “U.S. financial transparency: trying to catch up to Panama.”

Adam S. Kaufmann, Assistant District Attorney for New York County State of New York, explained at a hearing why a U.S. company is as good as an offshore company for hiding the identity of its non-U.S. owners:

We regularly speak to law enforcement agents and prosecutors around the world. It is difficult to speak with moral authority in criticizing offshore bank secrecy jurisdictions when they can point an accusing finger back at us. The British Virgin Islands is a well-known (in law enforcement circles) bastion for dirty shell companies, but even the British Virgin Islands can level criticism at the lack of transparency in the incorporation processes in our states. That we were deemed “non-compliant” by the Financial Action Task Force is an embarrassment. That we have made no progress in the three years since then is absurd. Our statement of national transparency standards should be something more than: “U.S. financial transparency: Better than Lichtenstein and trying to catch up to Panama.” Simply put, we lag behind many other countries in the world in this regard, and it makes our statements concerning transparency and tax evasion ring hollow and hypocritical.
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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

UBS wins court stay: justice made or election payback?

Offshore providers elsewhere take note: big checks at election time may give relief from anti-tax haven measures...

.

Obama’s Double-Edged Sword
Guest Column By Paul R. Hollrah July 16, 2009
In a July 14th editorial titled "Picking on the Swiss," the Wall Street Journal criticizes the Obama Administration for attempting to require the Swiss Bank, UBS, to turn over to the IRS the names of some 52,000 US taxpayers who currently maintain secret accounts with the bank.
According to the Journal, "This sort of fishing expedition expressly violates the U.S.-Swiss treaty on sharing tax information. The original treaty dates back 30 years, and under the pact the Swiss regularly provide the IRS with information on specific cases. But what the IRS is attempting here is a mass search of U.S. taxpayers merely for banking in Switzerland."
In response, the Justice Department argues that "UBS systematically marketed its private banking services in order to avoid U.S. taxation," which, in fact, they did.
The Journal concludes, "Apart from the diplomatic ramifications, the government's request for so broad a swath of information could well run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search. The Obama Administration should use the court reprieve to rethink the whole case."
Actually, it is surprising that the IRS, currently supervised by Obama's tax-cheating Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, would actually pursue such information. The last thing that Obama needs is for U.S. authorities to have the names of UBS's American clients, a list that could then be compared with Obama's Federal Election Commission filings from the 2008 election.
Here's a bit of background, and why it represents a double-edged sword for Obama.
In a July 22, 2008 article in The Nation magazine, titled, "Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers," it was disclosed that Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, had been "outed" in six months of hearings conducted by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, then chaired by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).
So, aside from being CEO of UBS's North American subsidiary, exactly who is Robert Wolf? Wolf is, along with the world's most evil man, George Soros, one of Obama's two top financial backers. He is also a highly influential member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.
In it's article, The Nation tells us, "Last week in Washington we got a rare look inside the global private banking industry, whose high purpose it is to gather up the assets of the world's wealthiest people and many of its worst villains, and shelter them from tax collectors, prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and each other."
According to a Statement of Facts in the June 2008 criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, UBS took significant steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting U.S. government authorities. For example, the Statement of Facts described how UBS advised American clients to withdraw funds from their accounts using Swiss
credit cards that "could not be discovered by U.S. authorities," to "destroy all off-shore banking records existing in the U.S.," and to "misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts... as loans from the Swiss bank."
The Nation reported that, "To achieve these results, UBS established an elaborate formal training program," which coached UBS bankers on how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, how to falsify visas, how to encrypt communications, and how to secretly move money into and out of the U.S. undetected. It was, as I suggested in a July 28, 2008 column titled, "Who Owns Barack Obama," the perfect instrument for funneling illegal foreign contributions into the coffers of an ambitious and unscrupulous American politician.
I suggested, just for the sake of argument, that a billionaire international financier who wished to influence the outcome of the American presidential elections, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious payees being entered by teams of paid staffers working in a "boiler room" setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the wealthy, but unnamed, "international financier."
...

If some American taxpayers are hiding taxable income from the IRS through the use of a Swiss bank account, it's only fair that they be identified and punished. Every American taxpayer who pays his/her taxes in full would agree with that. However, if the United Bank of Switzerland is ultimately forced to turn over the names of its 52,000 American depositors, and those names are then compared with UBS credit card receipts received by the Obama campaign, there'll be hell to pay. It's a double-edged sword for Obama and it couldn't happen to a better guy.
Given the newsworthiness of the underlying story, the Wall Street Journal may wish to reevaluate its editorial stance. The uncovering of a few thousand tax cheats is small potatoes compared to the unearthing of the largest electoral
fraud in history... a fraud that facilitated the purchase of the presidency of the United States.
...

Full text in http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obamas-double-edged-sword/


President Barack Obama shakes hands with Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas, after signing an executive order establishing the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board as members of the Board gather around him in the East Room of the White House in Washington on February 6, 2009.



The skeleton in Obama’s money closet
By Judi McLeod Thursday, July 24, 2008
Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, who has bundled more than $370,850 for Barack Obama so far this year, is one of the most embarrassing skeletons in BO’s money closet, now that the financial institution Wolf heads up in America has been outed in The Nation’s Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers.

“…This crowded docket, combined with the UBS mea culpa, almost distracted us from the sordid details of the Levin Committee’s actual findings,” investigative journalist James S. Henry, wrote in The Nation on Tuesday.

It’s not as if Wolf is just another number in the contribution side of the ledger paying for Obama’s race to the White House.

Among the groupies pushing Obama’s rock star-status, Wolf stands at the front of the line.

Wolf was “wowed” by the Senator from Illinois when he first met in December 2006. “He handed Obama his card and said, “I’d like to get to know you more.” (John Heilemann, New York Magazine, April 16, 2007). Obama phoned the next day. “When we hung up, he said, `I’ll call you after the holidays,’ and I’m thinking, Yeah, right, he’s gonna call me,” Wolf says. But call Obama did. The next week they had dinner in Washington, just the two of them, on the night that George W. Bush gave his speech announcing the surge of additional troops into Iraq. “I felt so honored to be sitting down with him for two hours on an occasion like that,” Wolf recalls, “knowing that he was going off to be interviewed on television later.”

“Within ten days, Obama had announced his intention to run and Clinton was officially in. A story in the Times reported that Obama had nailed two A-list New York donors: Soros and Wolf. But though Soros’s backing was a symbolic coup, it’s Wolf who has emerged as Obama’s most copious cash collector in the city so far—hosting two high-dollar cocktail parties, making countless calls, harvesting more than $500,000.

“As Wolf tells me about the soirees he’s hosted, he reaches into a meticulously organized scrapbook, takes out a photograph of him and Obama grinning madly, and tells me that I can keep it. “The way Barack has taken this nation with his rock-star status,” he says, “it’s very exciting!”

But Obama’s biggest New York groupie was nowhere around in last Thursday’s standing-room only hearing on tax haven banks and tax compliance held by the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

Wolf’s financial institution’s parent company UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank and the world’s largest private wealth manager, with $1.9 trillion in client assets and nearly 84,000 employees in fifty countries, including 32,000 in the United States, was one of two exposed in the results of the Congressional Committee’s six-month investigation.

It was not UBS’s most honorable corporate moment.

“The Statement of Facts in the Birkenfeld criminal case describes additional actions taken by UBS bankers to help U.S. clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting U.S. authorities. It states, for example, that UBS bankers advised U.S. clients to withdraw funds from their accounts using Swiss credit cards that “could not be discovered by the United States authorities”, to “destroy all off-shore banking records existing in the United States”; and to “misrepresent the receipt of funds from the Swiss bank account in the United States as loans from the Swiss Bank.”440. The Statement of facts also discloses that, on one occasion, “at the request of a U.S. client, defendant Birkenfeld purchased diamonds using that U.S. client’s Swiss bank account funds and smuggled the diamonds into the United States in a toothpaste tube,” presumably so that the U.S. client could obtain possession of his Swiss assets without alerting U.S. authorities.441. It also states that Mr. Birkenfeld and his business associate Mario Staggl “accepted bundles of checks from U.S. clients and facilitated the deposit of those checks into accounts at the Swiss bank” and elsewhere, presumably to assist the clients in making transfers to their Swiss accounts, again without alerting U.S. authorities.442.

But wait a minute, didn’t Obama tell AP last April, “We’re proud of the fact that we were able to do this (collecting just $1 million less than rival Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record haul) without any money from federal lobbyists or PACs”?

And does find it mind boggling that Obama was one of three congressional sponsors of the new “bundling disclosure” provision in the Disclosure of Contributions “Bundled” by Lobbyists as a key provision in new Lobbying Disclosure Law to be interpreted and implemented by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)?
...

From Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers, ˆ”In 2001, UBS had signed a formal “qualified intermediary” agreement with the US Treasury. Under this program, it agreed either to withhold taxes against American clients who had Swiss accounts and owned US stocks, or disclose their identities. However, when UBS’s American clients refused to go along with these arrangements, the bank just caved in and lied to the U.S. government. Eventually, it concealed 19,000 such clients, partly by helping to form hundreds of offshore companies. This cost the US Treasury an estimated $200 million per hear in lost taxes.”

Of the high fliers in the “utterly unprincipled global private banking industry”, Henry concludes: “They wield enormous political influence even without paying taxes, merely by making contributions, threatening to withhold them—or better yet, threatening to abscond with their capital unless certain conditions are met. In a sense, this is the ultimate libertarian pipe dream: representation without taxation. But it is a nightmare for the rest of us, and we must design and organize our way around it.”
...


Full text in http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4088