3 ms·
> While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data. How convenient. > the papers simply re
by tomp 11y ago
> While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data.
How convenient.
> the papers simply reveal the vast number of people who use offshore to protect their wealth. There is nothing unlawful about doing this. It is not illegal to be a director, shareholder or beneficial owner – the real owner, even though their name may not appear on the shareholder register – of an offshore company.
Then why hide it?
This smells funny. Millions of papers leaked, and Putin is the biggest fish they caught. I don't doubt he's knees-deep in illegal activity, but I just can't see how $2B is in any way comparable with the billions hidden by westerners; after all, it was them who set up and keep protecting tax havens, and they've had 100 years to learn to conceal their activity, compared to just 2 decades for the Russians. I'll remain hopeful, though, for further leaks of some western influential figures.
- kuschku 11y agoOn TV some of the journalists involved just said that they wouldn’t know "any western bank or government not involved in this". You should watch the TV debate, btw.
- klunger 11y ago> Then why hide it? There are a lot of legitimate reasons to use these kinds of services. Releasing all the data is a huge privacy violation for all the customers who have done nothing wrong. Would you like much of your perfectly legal business and/or personal finance dealings suddenly made public?
- tomp 11y agoYes. I think all contracts should be public (or, equivalently, that private contracts wouldn't be enforceable). That kind of transparency would help a lot with various issues we have these days (terrorism, inequality, corruption, bribery, white-collar crime, ...).