11 ms·

Tax authorities in Denmark buy 'Panama Papers' evidence

88 points by sjreese 10y ago

scotty79 10y ago
Tax authorities pay taxes for the purchase of stolen documents. Quite funny but also nice to see that Panama Papers will receive some public scrutiny.
- Tomte 10y ago
  German states (most notably Northrhine-Westphalia) have been buying tax evader lists for years, sparking lots of public debate. Switzerland and Lichtenstein really hate that.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    > Switzerland and Lichtenstein really hate that. On economic terms, moral terms or legal terms?
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Ostensibly on moral and legal terms, but really on economic terms (and because it's Germany -- the US were much harsher towards Switzerland, but the Swiss didn't complain as loudly and simply complied).
  - scotty79 10y ago
    I'm mostly amused not by the fact they bought stolen document, but paid tax on this transaction. This speaks to me that there are laws and there are taxes. Laws are fuzzy but taxes are sure.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      "Spy tax", even. You can't make this up.
mathiasrw 10y ago
They might try to use the information to see if they can get some of the €800.000.000 back lost: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fears-it-has-been-victim-of-biggest-ever-800m-tax https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fea...
klausjensen 10y ago
I don't understand how buying stolen property is suddenly not illegal, when it is the tax authorities doing it. But there are almost no limits to what the tax authorities can get away with in Denmark. This is the press release from the Danish tax authorities, confirming the purchase: http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0 http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0
- marketanarchist 10y ago
  All states routinely break their own "rules". I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  This is a case where you have to weight both sides. On one side it is leaked documents, on the other hand it would be useless if people just paid taxes as they should. I'm okay with them doing this to catch tax evaders. Ideally all states would freely exchange information about financial transactions and tax payments for companies - rendering this useless.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny. The people at the NSA who decided to build dragnet surveillance didn't sit down one day and said "hey, I'm feeling evil today, let's violate some laws for lulz", they said "omg terrorists, this is a case where we have to weigh both sides". When cops do illegal searches, they're convinced they're weighing both sides in the interests of getting a criminal of the street. At the very least, you lose any credibility to criticise the government when they bend the law to catch some bad guys, if you're OK with them bending the law to catch other bad guys. There are some things that are more important than catching some asshole tax cheats. Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing.
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.
lagadu 10y ago
I live in Denmark, so this is being bought with my tax money, and I see no problem with this. I'm sure that most of the money there is legal and was correctly taxed where applicable but it's good that the few who might stealing from the rest of us get potentially brought to justice.
- RaleyField 10y ago
  I wonder if this would fly in US. > and I see no problem with this It goes against fruit of the poisonous tree principle[1], what Danish government is doing should be wrong because it tacitly approves future illegal activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    There is no such thing as invalid evidence in Denmark, merely because it was obtained illegally. You might be on trial if you obtained evidence illegally, but the evidence itself will be usable in a courtroom.
  - lagadu 10y ago
    They're not approving illegal activity in Denmark, they're tacitly approving activity that may or may not be legal on a jurisdiction that is outside of the scope of its parent state. Regardless, that doctrine isn't used in most of Europe; the linked article even points that out: where illegally obtained evidence is usually admissible in court (depending on each state's law) but the gatherer faces charges for that.
lordnacho 10y ago
How will a court view the way in which this evidence was obtained? And what about the veracity? Surely anyone who appears in the purchased data will say that it is unreliable.
- Tomte 10y ago
  After his house has been searched there will be ample evidence. The standard for investigating someone is much, much lower than for convicting someone. Such tax evasion lists are easily enough to do an investigation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lagadu 10y ago
  This kind of data is used to conduct investigations. People aren't charged based on the data on this evidence but rather the authorities use this data in order to know where and at what to look for fraud.
- mrweasel 10y ago
  I'm not completely sure, but I think SKAT (the Danish tax authorities) handle everything, outside the courts, when dealing with tax avoidance situations.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    Doesn't really matter. They use this information to figure out where to collect the real evidence. This is used purely to pinpoint what information to obtain through official channels.
jugbee 10y ago
The Baltic states' tax authorities are to do the same. Heard a debate on the radio few days ago, with the host asking "is this even legal" and the chief of the tax authority responded: "and is this legal to evade taxes?"
- peteretep 10y ago
  That's a pretty shitty counter question by the tax authority guy. There are exceptional reasons for laws that bind the hands of the authorities
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Wouldn't illegally obtained evidence be inadmissible in a court of law?
brador 10y ago
In which currency is "805,000 euros ($903,000) " a round number (say a million)? That could be a hint to origin.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  805000€ or $903000 is already round enough (800000€ / $900000). You are not going to get rounder than that, since there are no hints about date, exchange commissions, ...
- Fjolle 10y ago
  Denmark. 6.000.000 DKK ~ 805.000 EUR
nisa 10y ago
Am I the only one who got the impression that this is strange!? Why do the journalists don't share the data with the governments for free? Establishing trust that the government is serious and real should be possible for them. Could the anonymous source just be a journalist who wants to profit of the data? I'm all for fighting tax avoidance but considering that most of the EU member states have an interest in the data this could be quite a sum of cash that is someone obtaining from an illegal hack. It's also not clear who benefits here. It's pretty shady isn't it? Even it's legal.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  In most jurisdictions (and I know this is true in Belgium), you cannot use illegally / stolen data as evidence in a trial. So there would be no point purchasing this data, because it would be thrown out in court. Maybe it could be used to pressure someone into taking some sort of settlement?
  - nisa 10y ago
    In Germany, while the use of the data was still uncertain, they implemented a possibility to pay back taxes and some fee if you self-indict your tax avoidance and you would have been out of trouble. This was pretty popular and gained more money than the data they bought if I remember this correctly.
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      I believe you mean evasion. Nothing illegal about avoidance.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Why do the journalists don't share the data with the governments for free? Funnily, the second largest media network responsible for this leak belongs to the German government (NDR). They cooperate with SZ all the time. So, a branch of the German government actually already has access. That leads to the question: Why don’t the governments share the data with each other for free? Or, as not even the German government itself gets access: Why doesn’t the government share the data with itself?

88 points by sjreese 10y ago

Tax authorities pay taxes for the purchase of stolen documents. Quite funny but also nice to see that Panama Papers will receive some public scrutiny.

Tomte 10y ago
German states (most notably Northrhine-Westphalia) have been buying tax evader lists for years, sparking lots of public debate. Switzerland and Lichtenstein really hate that.
- neximo64 10y ago
  > Switzerland and Lichtenstein really hate that. On economic terms, moral terms or legal terms?
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Ostensibly on moral and legal terms, but really on economic terms (and because it's Germany -- the US were much harsher towards Switzerland, but the Swiss didn't complain as loudly and simply complied).
- scotty79 10y ago
  I'm mostly amused not by the fact they bought stolen document, but paid tax on this transaction. This speaks to me that there are laws and there are taxes. Laws are fuzzy but taxes are sure.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    "Spy tax", even. You can't make this up.

mathiasrw 10y ago

They might try to use the information to see if they can get some of the €800.000.000 back lost: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fears-it-has-been-victim-of-biggest-ever-800m-tax https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fea...

klausjensen 10y ago

I don't understand how buying stolen property is suddenly not illegal, when it is the tax authorities doing it. But there are almost no limits to what the tax authorities can get away with in Denmark. This is the press release from the Danish tax authorities, confirming the purchase: http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0 http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0

marketanarchist 10y ago
All states routinely break their own "rules". I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.
hvidgaard 10y ago
This is a case where you have to weight both sides. On one side it is leaked documents, on the other hand it would be useless if people just paid taxes as they should. I'm okay with them doing this to catch tax evaders. Ideally all states would freely exchange information about financial transactions and tax payments for companies - rendering this useless.
- mseebach 10y ago
  In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny. The people at the NSA who decided to build dragnet surveillance didn't sit down one day and said "hey, I'm feeling evil today, let's violate some laws for lulz", they said "omg terrorists, this is a case where we have to weigh both sides". When cops do illegal searches, they're convinced they're weighing both sides in the interests of getting a criminal of the street. At the very least, you lose any credibility to criticise the government when they bend the law to catch some bad guys, if you're OK with them bending the law to catch other bad guys. There are some things that are more important than catching some asshole tax cheats. Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.

lagadu 10y ago

I live in Denmark, so this is being bought with my tax money, and I see no problem with this. I'm sure that most of the money there is legal and was correctly taxed where applicable but it's good that the few who might stealing from the rest of us get potentially brought to justice.

RaleyField 10y ago
I wonder if this would fly in US. > and I see no problem with this It goes against fruit of the poisonous tree principle[1], what Danish government is doing should be wrong because it tacitly approves future illegal activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  There is no such thing as invalid evidence in Denmark, merely because it was obtained illegally. You might be on trial if you obtained evidence illegally, but the evidence itself will be usable in a courtroom.
- lagadu 10y ago
  They're not approving illegal activity in Denmark, they're tacitly approving activity that may or may not be legal on a jurisdiction that is outside of the scope of its parent state. Regardless, that doctrine isn't used in most of Europe; the linked article even points that out: where illegally obtained evidence is usually admissible in court (depending on each state's law) but the gatherer faces charges for that.

lordnacho 10y ago

How will a court view the way in which this evidence was obtained? And what about the veracity? Surely anyone who appears in the purchased data will say that it is unreliable.

Tomte 10y ago
After his house has been searched there will be ample evidence. The standard for investigating someone is much, much lower than for convicting someone. Such tax evasion lists are easily enough to do an investigation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lagadu 10y ago
This kind of data is used to conduct investigations. People aren't charged based on the data on this evidence but rather the authorities use this data in order to know where and at what to look for fraud.
mrweasel 10y ago
I'm not completely sure, but I think SKAT (the Danish tax authorities) handle everything, outside the courts, when dealing with tax avoidance situations.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  Doesn't really matter. They use this information to figure out where to collect the real evidence. This is used purely to pinpoint what information to obtain through official channels.

jugbee 10y ago

The Baltic states' tax authorities are to do the same. Heard a debate on the radio few days ago, with the host asking "is this even legal" and the chief of the tax authority responded: "and is this legal to evade taxes?"

peteretep 10y ago
That's a pretty shitty counter question by the tax authority guy. There are exceptional reasons for laws that bind the hands of the authorities
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Wouldn't illegally obtained evidence be inadmissible in a court of law?

brador 10y ago

In which currency is "805,000 euros ($903,000) " a round number (say a million)? That could be a hint to origin.

gonvaled 10y ago
805000€ or $903000 is already round enough (800000€ / $900000). You are not going to get rounder than that, since there are no hints about date, exchange commissions, ...
Fjolle 10y ago
Denmark. 6.000.000 DKK ~ 805.000 EUR

nisa 10y ago

Am I the only one who got the impression that this is strange!? Why do the journalists don't share the data with the governments for free? Establishing trust that the government is serious and real should be possible for them. Could the anonymous source just be a journalist who wants to profit of the data? I'm all for fighting tax avoidance but considering that most of the EU member states have an interest in the data this could be quite a sum of cash that is someone obtaining from an illegal hack. It's also not clear who benefits here. It's pretty shady isn't it? Even it's legal.

charlesdm 10y ago
In most jurisdictions (and I know this is true in Belgium), you cannot use illegally / stolen data as evidence in a trial. So there would be no point purchasing this data, because it would be thrown out in court. Maybe it could be used to pressure someone into taking some sort of settlement?
- nisa 10y ago
  In Germany, while the use of the data was still uncertain, they implemented a possibility to pay back taxes and some fee if you self-indict your tax avoidance and you would have been out of trouble. This was pretty popular and gained more money than the data they bought if I remember this correctly.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    I believe you mean evasion. Nothing illegal about avoidance.
kuschku 10y ago
> Why do the journalists don't share the data with the governments for free? Funnily, the second largest media network responsible for this leak belongs to the German government (NDR). They cooperate with SZ all the time. So, a branch of the German government actually already has access. That leads to the question: Why don’t the governments share the data with each other for free? Or, as not even the German government itself gets access: Why doesn’t the government share the data with itself?