The industry of secret fortunes works in a relatively simple manner. Each owner, lawyer or frontman knows their role and the rules that they need to respect or bypass. And everything works like a Swiss watch. Looked at from outside, the overview can become cloudy. These are the key points to understanding the Pandora Papers, which allow for an analysis of this sector from its very own nerve center.
1. What are the Pandora Papers?
The Pandora Papers is the name given to a journalistic investigation based on a major leak of confidential documents from 14 offshore service providers dedicated to the creation of companies in countries such as Panama, the British Virgin Isles and the Bahamas.
In Spain, EL PAÍS and television network La Sexta are the partners on this project, which has seen the collaboration of more than 600 journalists from 117 countries under the coordination of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Other media outlets who have taken part in the project, considered to be the biggest journalistic collaboration in history, include Le Monde (France), The Guardian (United Kingdom), The Washington Post (United States), L’Espresso (Italy) and La Nación (Argentina), among others.
Over the course of nearly two years, more than 11.9 million files have been analyzed, including text documents, spreadsheets, emails and images. There are certificates of incorporation, lists of shareholders, invoices, passports, travel records… Together, they constitute an unprecedented snapshot of the hidden side of international finance and shed light on the secrets of tax havens and the professionals who act as a bridge to reach these jurisdictions. The leak points to more than 27,000 companies created between 1971 and 2018, and nearly 30,000 of their beneficiaries. Among them, there are 751 companies linked to Spain.
2. Which relevant public figures appear in the Pandora Papers?
The investigation reveals the secret assets, covert deals and hidden fortunes of the rich and powerful: more than 330 politicians and people in public office (90 of them European), 15 heads of state in Latin America among current and retired figures, 46 Russian oligarchs, and 133 multi-millionaires from Forbes magazine’s rich list.
On the international scene, names of note include the Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera, who hid shares in a mining company, or the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who avoided taxes when working as a consultant. Also present is the king of Jordan, Abdullah II, along with his 30 companies and three mansions in Malibu, and the Czech prime minister, Andrej Babis, who used an offshore network to buy a chateau with a cinema and two swimming pools.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife Cherie also appear. They purchased a Victorian building in London valued at $8.8 million (€7.6 million). There are also crime figures such as Raffaele Amato, the Italian Camorra mafia boss who inspired the movie Gomorra, and who was arrested in the Spanish city of Málaga in 2009.
There are stars of the fashion and entertainment world such as Claudia Schiffer, Julio Iglesias and Shakira. Among the recognizable faces from the world of sport are Carlo Ancelotti, who is already being investigated by the Spanish tax authorities, and former Barcelona FC manager Pep Guardiola over an account he held in the principality of Andorra. There are more relevant personalities who will be made public over the coming weeks.
3. What is a tax haven?
A tax haven is a territory where the creation of trading companies is among the main economic activity, or in some cases the only one. They offer huge fiscal advantages to citizens from other countries who seek to reduce their tax burdens (the taxes associated with the activity of these entities is either zero or a symbolic rate), but they also protect their anonymity, with legal contexts that make it difficult to identify the true beneficiaries of a particular company.
A concept that in recent years has become key to identifying the territories that can be considered tax havens is their scant inclination to share information with the authorities from other countries. Even so, there is no global or official list of such jurisdictions, and each country can decide for itself with whom it will sign taxation agreements or share information. These pacts have allowed the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to eliminate 30 or so countries from its list of states that do not cooperate on matters of taxation.
The Spanish list, for example, dates back to 1991. It initially included 48 states and since then there have only been removals: there are currently 33. A new law against tax fraud, which was approved by the Spanish government this year, is due to rewrite the list of non-cooperative states, and will be updated periodically.
In 2015, the European Commission published its own account of 30 countries that it considers to be tax havens. In response, some of these nations presented their “commitment” to collaborating with other jurisdictions, and as a result the list was reduced to 12 non-cooperating countries: American Samoa, Anguilla, Dominica, Fiji, Guam, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, the US Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and the Seychelles.
4. What is an offshore company? What are they used for?
Offshore companies are created in a country that is different to the one in which their beneficiaries reside. They have a clear purpose in the global economy. As Francisco Bonatti, an attorney and consultant on money laundering, explains: “They are necessary a lot of the time for the major flow of capital. That part of the offshore economy is not just legal, but also in an economy such as the current one, which is delocalized and globalized, they are genuinely needed.”
The problem with these companies is when they are created in opaque jurisdictions in search of low or zero taxation rates and confidentiality. These companies do not have any genuine activity in the countries where they are registered; they do not need an office nor employees. They are used, generally speaking, to hide and avoid any fiscal or legal responsibilities for the real owner of assets that could be financial, but could also constitute real estate, art works or vehicles, among others. A study published in 2017 estimated that 10% of global GDP was located in offshore companies.
5. Who can open a company in a tax haven, and how is it done?
An entire industry has sprung up around the management of the steps needed so that anyone from any part of the world can create their companies in secret. Thanks to the use of these firms, the client manages to avoid any trace of their identity in official documents such as incorporation papers and shareholder lists. Among the documents in the Pandora Papers are some of the biggest offshore service suppliers on a global scale, such as Alemán, Cordero, Galindo y Lee (Alcogal), Trident Trust and Asiaciti.
Using their services, someone who has never left Spain could register a company in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands without even getting off their sofa. To run a more complex company or create a complicated structure it is, however, always necessary to first consult with a law firm or tax consultant in one’s country of residence.
6. Is it legal to have a company in a tax haven?
Having a company in a tax haven is legal provided that the assets and income derived from their activity are declared to the authorities where the beneficiary resides ordinarily. In fact, it is normal for major companies who operate in the global market to structure their international presence by locating their subsidiaries in some of these territories to lighten their tax burdens.
To sum up, someone who is ordinarily resident in Spain can set up a company in an offshore jurisdiction provided that the Spanish Tax Agency knows of their existence and receives the corresponding levies.
7. If this is legal, why are the Pandora Papers relevant?
The problems begin when these companies and their profits are deliberately hidden in these jurisdictions, without their existence being declared to the authorities where the true owner is resident for tax purposes. This is applicable to many of the cases in the Pandora Papers. Under that layer of opacity, flows of illicit funds are hidden, opening the door to bribery, money laundering, tax evasion or the financing of terrorism.
According to an estimate by the European Commission, citizens in the EU use different tax evasion vehicles to divert the equivalent of 9.7% of the region’s GDP. This means €46 billion of lost tax revenue every year, the equivalent to eight times the yearly budget of the Spanish Education Ministry. The OECD calculates that at least $11.3 trillion (€10 trillion) is held offshore on a global scale.
Thanks to the revelations that have accompanied leaks such as this one, efforts in the fight against tax fraud and money laundering have been strengthened. Regulations have appeared such as one protecting whistleblowers in the European Union, while the exchange of fiscal information between countries has been strengthened. The Pandora Papers are a new snapshot of an industry of secrets that, in spite of everything, continues to enjoy rude health and counts on some very powerful figures among its clients.
8. Which law firms appear?
The preferred firm for Spaniards is the Panamanian company Alemán, Cordero, Galindo y Lee (Alcogal). Among its portfolio are at least 253 companies linked to the country. It has offices in a dozen countries, including New Zealand, Uruguay and the United Arab Emirates, among others, and has counted figures such as King Abdullah II of Jordan among its clients.
In response to the questions posed by the ICIJ, Alcogal has issued a statement in which it states it meets the legal requisites of the regions where it operates. This is the general position of the other firms that appear in the Pandora Papers.
Trident Trust is one of the biggest suppliers of offshore companies in the world and there are estimates that it administers assets with a value of €35 billion. There is more information about the firm than any other in the Pandora Papers, and among its clients is the current Real Madrid soccer club manager, Carlo Ancelotti. The firm benefitted from the fall of Mossack Fonseca after the publication of the so-called Panama Papers. It incorporated nearly 100 clients who transferred their companies from the vilified firm. Despite all of this, the company has said in a statement that it “routinely collaborates with any competent authority who requests information.” Less well known in Europe, but fundamental in Latin America, is OMC, also based in Panama and in charge of the offshore finances of the Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera, among others.
The other firms are SFM, which, among others is in charge of the companies of former IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Khan; Asiaciti Trust, the only one that is headquartered in Asia, in Singapore; All About Offshore (AABOL), based in the Seychelles; Commence BVI, which is more attractive for African clients; Fidelity Management, chosen by the ex-prime minister of Jordan, Abdul Karim Kabariti; Demetrios A Demetriades LLC, from Cyprus and DadLaw, from Malta, the only ones based in Europe; Commonwealth Corporate Services Limited (CCS), CilTrust and Godfrey Law, the three based in Belize; and II Shin, the only Chinese firm in the leak.
9. What differences and similarities are there with the Panama Papers?
Both the Pandora Papers and the Panama Papers were projects led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Despite five years having passed since the publication of the latter, both share many characteristics. The documents associated with both leaks originate from offshore providers. In fact, the Panama Papers came from the Mossack Fonseca law firm, which was based in that Central American country.
The volume of both leaks is similar, although the Pandora Papers contain around 400,000 more files and their 2.94 terabytes of data are just slightly more than the 2.6 terabytes from its predecessor.
What is unprecedented is the level of detail with which the new leak shows the relationships between those who seek benefits from the creation of companies in tax havens and the wide range of professionals who help with this objective. It is not just one firm, but rather 14. And the more firms there are, the more clients: the Pandora Papers contain information about more than 29,000 company owners, which is double what could be extracted five years ago.
10. Has anything changed since the Panama Papers?
The Panama Papers represented a before and after in terms of how offshore companies are viewed. That has been confirmed by the lawyers who work in the sector, and also the files from the new investigation: after 2016, Trident Trust incorporated nearly a hundred clients who opted to transfer their companies from Mossack Fonseca to a new supplier in order to avoid exposure and pressure from the authorities.
In Spain, a year after the publication of this information, the country’s Anti-Money Laundering Supervisory Authority (Sepblac) was able to access the information from 209 Panamanian companies that had previously been under lock and key, including those that allowed for the diversion of funds in the so-called “Defex case,” when the Spanish state-owned firm was hauled up over bribes for arms contracts.
The Spanish Tax Agency was able to recover at least €140 million after auditing 244 taxpayers, and on a global scale at least €1.2 billion in taxes were recovered.
What’s more, the authorities in Panama – under global pressure after the scandal – agreed to sign agreements to share information with a number of European countries. These agreements facilitated the almost-automatic sharing of banking and tax data between countries, an instrument that allows tax inspectors to enjoy better access to documents that previously could have taken years to get hold of.
English version by Simon Hunter.
Too hot to handle: can our bodies withstand global heating?
Extreme heat can kill or cause long-term health problems – but for many unendurable temperatures are the new normal
The impact of extreme heat on the human body is not unlike what happens when a car overheats. Failure starts in one or two systems, and eventually it takes over the whole engine until the car stops.
That’s according to Mike McGeehin, environmental health epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “When the body can no longer cool itself it immediately impacts the circulatory system. The heart, the kidneys, and the body become more and more heated and eventually our cognitive abilities begin to desert us – and that’s when people begin fainting, eventually going into a coma and dying.”
Polish TV sabotages Tusk press briefing
Polish opposition leader Donald Tusk clashed with Polish propaganda outlet TVP in Warsaw Tuesday. A TVP reporter asked him why Tusk’s party wanted Poland to leave the EU. “This is beyond imagination … I won’t answer such absurdities,” Tusk, whose Civic Platform party is pro-EU, said, before a prickly exchange ensued. TVP also muted MEPs who said Poland should face EU rule-of-law sanctions in its coverage of a Strasbourg debate.
Odyssey Marine Exploration: Spanish court shelves case against US treasure hunters that looted ‘Mercedes’ frigate | USA
The history of the Spanish frigate Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes includes two grievances and one victory. The first of the former was when the British Navy sunk it and its 275 crew members on October 5, 1804, off Portugal’s Algarve coast. The second offense came in May 2007, when the US treasure-hunting company Odyssey Marine Exploration scooped up its cargo of 500,000 silver and gold coins from the shipwreck at the bottom of the sea.
Triumph came when the US justice system confirmed that the treasure belonged to Spain, in a ruling released in February 2012. But there was one more affront to come: a Spanish court has just definitively shelved a case into alleged crimes committed by the US treasure hunters as they were removing the coins. After a tortuous 14-year investigation, a courtroom in Cádiz has been left with no option but to let the probe die, albeit admitting its “bafflement” and “anger” over what it considers “unusual proceedings.”
At the same time as the legal process began in Florida to determine who was the rightful owner of the rescued treasure, Odyssey or Spain, a court in La Línea de la Concepción, in the southwestern Spanish province of Cádiz, began investigating whether the then-CEO of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Greg Stemm, and his team had committed any criminal offenses when they removed the haul from the shipwreck. Among the potential crimes were damaging an archeological site and smuggling.
The fact that the 500,000 pieces of silver and gold were returned to Spain in February 2012 – nearly 17 tons of material, which are now held in the ARQUA underwater archeology museum in Cartagena – is proof that the legal battle in the United States ended well for Spain. But the latest decision in the Spanish case, to which EL PAÍS has had access, leaves no doubt that the investigation into potential crimes has definitively been shipwrecked.
The three judges who were responsible for the case found that the shelving, which cannot be appealed, is based principally on the fact that the potential offenses have now exceeded the statute of limitations in Spain for trial. And the slow process of the probe, according to the judges’ writ, was due to the failure of the US justice system to respond to the letters rogatory sent in 2013, and that were needed if Stemm and the rest of the suspects were to be questioned by investigators.
“In terms of the lawsuit over the coins, the United States was on Spain’s side,” explains Ángel Núñez, a public prosecutor who specializes in cultural heritage and who was in charge of the case until 2009. “But it is true that when it comes to targeting one of their own nationals, they are not so willing to collaborate. And given that these were US citizens who are not at the disposal of the Spanish courts…”
The Spanish court probe into Odyssey had already entered into a tailspin before this latest ruling. In December 2016, another judge in La Línea dismissed the case. The private prosecution, which was brought by the company Nerea Arqueología Subacuática, appealed the decision but it was rejected. In a new attempt to not let the legal process die, archeologist Javier Noriega, one of the heads of this small company based in Málaga, took the case to the High Court of Cádiz province, in La Línea, the one that has definitively shelved the proceedings.
In their ruling, the judges add that they share “with the appellant his surprise, confusion and even anger for the, shall we call it, unusual proceedings with this case, at least since the year 2013.” The magistrates do not go so far as to specify what prompted them to feel this way.
Archeologist Javier Noriega believes that he knows all too well what they are referring to. He and his colleagues decided to take up the case – represented by the attorney José María Lancho – as a “professional and moral obligation.” They have since seen how “all of these years can be summed up by the end: exceeding the statute of limitations.” “They avoided entering into the substance of what happened to Spain’s cultural heritage,” the expert complains.
These unusual proceedings in the investigation which the judges mention and that Noriega suffered first-hand were reported on in the Spanish press. In March 2012, a former legal representative for Odyssey, with no authority, entered the courtroom when the judge was absent and persuaded court workers to photocopy the entire findings of the legal investigation so far, as was reported by the Spanish daily Abc at the time. According to Abc, such an action would have allowed Odyssey to prepare a defense against the findings of Civil Guard investigators and decide whether or not to actually take part in the trial.
The actions of the representative were very serious, taking into account that the probe was counting on a protected witness: a diver who had been threatened for having denounced Odyssey, given that he had knowledge of some of its activities in Spanish waters.
Now Noriega, 46, is gloomy about the end of a process that has occupied a significant part of his career. “As people who love our profession, it’s frustrating,” he explains. “It ends up being a defeat for all of us, for culture and for society. And if as well as that, the person responsible has gone unpunished, because of the statute of limitations, that’s very sad.”
Despite the legal setback, the archeologist argues that the court probe contains “evidence of all kinds, archeological, from witnesses, technical, juridical, and a ton of resounding questions that deal with what supposedly happened with an overwhelming truthfulness.”
The expert believes that an opportunity has been missed by Europe to convey “a clear message to the thieves who have spent years destroying the history of those shipwrecks from the modern era all over the world.”
Odyssey Marine Exploration never had any interest in the Spanish frigate beyond the cargo of silver and gold that it was carrying. That was made clear by the destruction caused by the company in the archeological area where the remains of the 275 people killed in the attack in 1804 lay. “When an archeological site is plundered, it is destroyed forever,” states Noriega.
After the site was looted, ARQUA led a scientific excavation that was carried out in three campaigns – from 2015 to 2017 – in which the remains of the shipwreck were documented and the items that the treasure hunters left behind were removed. These included cannon, cutlery and other everyday objects from life on board. The expedition also achieved the challenge of descending 1,130 meters underwater, the maximum depth achieved until that point during a subaquatic arqueological mission by a European country.
While the damage done to a historical site such as the Mercedes shipwreck will not result in a trial or convictions, Núñez believes that the consequences of the process “were positive, from a legal and global point of view.” Noriega goes even further: “Spain and its coasts are, today, possibly the best protected and safest in the world with regard to the protection of cultural heritage against looting.”
Since the Odyssey case, the classification of offenses against historical heritage in Spain has improved, new archeological maps have been created, there is better coordination between administrations, and there is greater social awareness about this kind of offense. It was precisely these weaknesses that the treasure-hunting company Odyssey made use of to make off with the coins. In fact, the activity has presumably lost its appeal not just in Spain but also elsewhere, given that the American company has since abandoned its treasure-hunting activities and is now focusing on underground mining.
Experience of pandemic in Dublin and London worlds apart
Systematic American Mistakes Are Making Russia Great Again
Raspberry Pi 4 in price rise first, chip shortage blamed • The Register
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Global Affairs1 week ago
Europe should switch to LED to meet CO2 targets
Technology1 week ago
Bolt electric car battery recall might have hurt General Motors, but LG will pay $1.9bn to sooth troubled feelings • The Register
Current6 days ago
Rents rise in city centres as tenants return after spending time with family during pandemic
Technology1 week ago
Microsoft .NET updates include C and C++ code in Blazor WebAssembly, release date for Visual Studio 2022 • The Register
Culture7 days ago
‘Cruel and brutal’: Norway’s political leaders react to Kongsberg attack
Culture1 week ago
Denmark to end Covid-19 colour system in ‘normalisation’ of entry rules
Current1 week ago
Will new evidence crack the case of Deirdre Jacob’s disappearance?
Technology1 week ago
Covid vaccination status can be faked in minutes in Service Victoria app, developers warn | Victoria