7 ms·

Were the Koch brothers actually implicated in the Panama papers? I have not read anything about that.

by nieksand 11y ago

nxzero 11y ago
Currently there's no mention of the Koch family directly or indirectly in the Panama Papers.
- infogulch 11y ago
  Interesting. However, they are mentioned by name in this article.
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Right, though the reference has nothing to do with the Panama Papers, but how they're impacting US politics; which is no secret.
- vincent_s 11y ago
  Very few Americans have been mentioned in the Panama Papers which has given rise to all sorts of speculation [1]. [1] https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Simply following that link shows that hundreds of Americans are in the documents, many of whom have already been convicted of financial crimes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sbuttgereit 11y ago
Not only were they not, the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). I think this is part of the reason why claims of bias in reporting are legitimate. The Guardian has an editorial perspective and that doesn't get left behind on opinion pages. Why not implicate the Kochs in a story like this if you already have a set of opinions about them which would have them fit nicely here? You achieve guilt by association and you reinforce the notion that they are part of this evil cabal that you desire to lump them in with anyway... and you're more agreeable readers will cheer simply cheer you, rather than ask about any pesky facts that really tie them in with subject at hand.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  > the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). They haven't endorsed a specific candidate yet, but they spent something like $400 million in 2015 and are planning on spending another $900 million this year. I'd say that's not exactly money on the sidelines. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goa...
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    I never said they don't spend and I do expect them to spend... but the context of the statement matters and until they do spend... they haven't. Moreover, political spending, even by the rich isn't necessarily bad (and I don't think it should be legally curtailed, even when it is). It all depends on what they are supporting. I suspect that I support what the Kochs will say with their money (note this is a highly qualified endorsement and may change depending on the specifics). For example, I wonder if Soros, a 1%er that is also known for dedicating some degree of his wealth to political advocacy last I heard. I suspect that the Guardian largely agrees with his advocacy and thus would never appear in an article like this. Their goal in suggesting wasn't to point out the likelihood of spending as a fact, but rather to suggest they would use their spending for nefarious purposes... without even the benefit of my kind of qualification: they suggest a foregone conclusion. That's not factual reporting, that's opinion making.
    - CWuestefeld 11y ago
      And while some folks might disagree with the Koch's philosophy, they haven't done anything quite as evil as has George Soros: In 1992, George Soros brought the Bank of England to its knees. In the process, he pocketed over a billion dollars. Making a billion dollars is by all accounts pretty cool. But demolishing the monetary system of Great Britain in a single day with an elegantly constructed bet against its currency? That’s the stuff of legends. -- http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george...
ttctciyf 11y ago
I haven't seen mention of the Kochs in "Panama papers" stories, but they were definitely mentioned in a previous round of leaks published by ICIJ, detailing tax avoidance strategies using Luxembourg's permissive tax regime. See: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea... for example, or, as http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/leaked-documents-detail-koch-industries http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/leaked-documents-detail-ko... has it: while the economy was melting down and U.S. banks were going broke, Koch Industries was moving corporate money out of the country and into the Luxembourg jurisdiction in order to dodge taxes and move nearly $1 billion around a Byzantine maze in order to ultimately cancel the debt and not impact balance sheets I'm not sure to what extent this was really news, though, since an earlier (2009) report at http://ecobserver.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/koch-industries-fails-to-disclose.html http://ecobserver.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/koch-industries-fai... states that Public documents available on the Luxembourg government website, Legilux.lu, reveal that Koch operates a complex system of offshore companies and accounts in order to avoid paying US taxes on huge sums of corporate profits. Out of his Kansas office, Global Tax Director for Koch Industries, Craig M. Munson, manages these offshore corporations with the assistance of a shady Luxembourg company, ATOZ s.a., whose partners are primarily former Arthur Anderson staffers – the tax advisory giant that ceased to exist as a result of their felony conviction in the Enron “off-shore and off-balance sheet” debt scandal of 2002.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the Kochs despise Trump. So why did the OP stuff them into the article? And why does the left side of the political spectrum vilify the Kochs, while still seeing nasty people like George Soros [1] as philanthropes. [1] http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george...
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I doubt very seriously t least Charles would even consider this. He's too big a target. Those guys are , if anything, living with the ghost of their father. Charles comes off like The Big Lebowski ( wheelchair Jeff ) only much more for real. My parents are Silent Generation and that's how they thought. The "Koch" tropes in media are largely fabricated. I'm not a fan, just disappointed in the reporting.

Were the Koch brothers actually implicated in the Panama papers? I have not read anything about that.

nxzero 11y ago

Currently there's no mention of the Koch family directly or indirectly in the Panama Papers.

infogulch 11y ago
Interesting. However, they are mentioned by name in this article.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Right, though the reference has nothing to do with the Panama Papers, but how they're impacting US politics; which is no secret.
vincent_s 11y ago
Very few Americans have been mentioned in the Panama Papers which has given rise to all sorts of speculation [1]. [1] https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans
- nxzero 11y ago
  Simply following that link shows that hundreds of Americans are in the documents, many of whom have already been convicted of financial crimes.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sbuttgereit 11y ago

Not only were they not, the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). I think this is part of the reason why claims of bias in reporting are legitimate. The Guardian has an editorial perspective and that doesn't get left behind on opinion pages. Why not implicate the Kochs in a story like this if you already have a set of opinions about them which would have them fit nicely here? You achieve guilt by association and you reinforce the notion that they are part of this evil cabal that you desire to lump them in with anyway... and you're more agreeable readers will cheer simply cheer you, rather than ask about any pesky facts that really tie them in with subject at hand.

mikeyouse 11y ago
> the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). They haven't endorsed a specific candidate yet, but they spent something like $400 million in 2015 and are planning on spending another $900 million this year. I'd say that's not exactly money on the sidelines. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goa...
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  I never said they don't spend and I do expect them to spend... but the context of the statement matters and until they do spend... they haven't. Moreover, political spending, even by the rich isn't necessarily bad (and I don't think it should be legally curtailed, even when it is). It all depends on what they are supporting. I suspect that I support what the Kochs will say with their money (note this is a highly qualified endorsement and may change depending on the specifics). For example, I wonder if Soros, a 1%er that is also known for dedicating some degree of his wealth to political advocacy last I heard. I suspect that the Guardian largely agrees with his advocacy and thus would never appear in an article like this. Their goal in suggesting wasn't to point out the likelihood of spending as a fact, but rather to suggest they would use their spending for nefarious purposes... without even the benefit of my kind of qualification: they suggest a foregone conclusion. That's not factual reporting, that's opinion making.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    And while some folks might disagree with the Koch's philosophy, they haven't done anything quite as evil as has George Soros: In 1992, George Soros brought the Bank of England to its knees. In the process, he pocketed over a billion dollars. Making a billion dollars is by all accounts pretty cool. But demolishing the monetary system of Great Britain in a single day with an elegantly constructed bet against its currency? That’s the stuff of legends. -- http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george...

ttctciyf 11y ago

I haven't seen mention of the Kochs in "Panama papers" stories, but they were definitely mentioned in a previous round of leaks published by ICIJ, detailing tax avoidance strategies using Luxembourg's permissive tax regime. See: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea... for example, or, as http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/leaked-documents-detail-koch-industries http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/leaked-documents-detail-ko... has it: while the economy was melting down and U.S. banks were going broke, Koch Industries was moving corporate money out of the country and into the Luxembourg jurisdiction in order to dodge taxes and move nearly $1 billion around a Byzantine maze in order to ultimately cancel the debt and not impact balance sheets I'm not sure to what extent this was really news, though, since an earlier (2009) report at http://ecobserver.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/koch-industries-fails-to-disclose.html http://ecobserver.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/koch-industries-fai... states that Public documents available on the Luxembourg government website, Legilux.lu, reveal that Koch operates a complex system of offshore companies and accounts in order to avoid paying US taxes on huge sums of corporate profits. Out of his Kansas office, Global Tax Director for Koch Industries, Craig M. Munson, manages these offshore corporations with the assistance of a shady Luxembourg company, ATOZ s.a., whose partners are primarily former Arthur Anderson staffers – the tax advisory giant that ceased to exist as a result of their felony conviction in the Enron “off-shore and off-balance sheet” debt scandal of 2002.

CWuestefeld 11y ago

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the Kochs despise Trump. So why did the OP stuff them into the article? And why does the left side of the political spectrum vilify the Kochs, while still seeing nasty people like George Soros [1] as philanthropes. [1] http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ http://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george...

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

I doubt very seriously t least Charles would even consider this. He's too big a target. Those guys are , if anything, living with the ghost of their father. Charles comes off like The Big Lebowski ( wheelchair Jeff ) only much more for real. My parents are Silent Generation and that's how they thought. The "Koch" tropes in media are largely fabricated. I'm not a fan, just disappointed in the reporting.