7 ms·

UBS Is Fined $4.2B in French Tax-Evasion Case

217 points by bryanwbh 8y ago

ghostDancer 8y ago
No paywall https://outline.com/YSFyPN https://outline.com/YSFyPN
arama471 8y ago
Does anyone know what the likelyhood of the 4.2B being paid out is? I imagine that UBS will go through all possible appeals processes. Also if the article is right in that this was affected by the protests, then that is a big win for protesting.
- smallgovt 8y ago
  UBS's market cap is $46B. After this was announced, their stock fell 4%. This drop, if permanent, would equate to a loss of ~$1.84B in market cap. There are many factors that could be influencing price, but if we attribute this 4% delta entirely to the announcement, the market is guessing the actual penalty will amount to $1.84B. This could be bc the market thinks UBS can appeal with a 50% success rate, or can negotiate the penalty down by 50% with high certainty. Edit: I hadn't considered tax implications. If UBS is able to deduct these penalties pre-tax (which I'd assume they would), then it suggests that they are very likely going to have to pay the full penalty. Of course, this is all guess work. e.g. the market could be scared that this sets a precedent for future additional penalties which would decrease the signalling towards full payment on this penalty.
  - mikeyouse 8y ago
    This isn't quite right -- The 4% loss could just represent the delta between what was already priced in and the actual loss. This case has been a long time coming so the expectation of the penalty should have been priced in long ago. Secondly, and it depends on the jurisdiction, but penalties and fees associated with wrongdoing generally aren't tax deductible. The US clarified this during the TCJA but most countries agree: https://www.clearyenforcementwatch.com/2018/02/1962/ https://www.clearyenforcementwatch.com/2018/02/1962/
    - repsilat 8y ago
      There's also that weirdness of financial companies having price-to-book less than one... (For UBS it's around 0.9. Don't ask me how it makes sense.)
      - calpaterson 8y ago
        Presumably that is down to straightforward doubt as to the value of UBS's book. It is not uncommon for unpopular companies that are holding a lot of their balance sheet at "market value" (as banks do) to trade at discounts to their stated book. Take a look at LSE:LAND, a "£10bn" REIT trading at a £6bn market cap.
      - mruts 8y ago
        Well, just as this case demonstrates, certain companies have exposure to other things (like paying a gargantuan fine) that would make their shareholder equity trade at a discount.
      - cm2187 8y ago
        There may be good reasons for that. First, there are two ways to value companies, depending on what kind of companies they are. The two extremes are on one side a consulting firm, where the value is worth only the present value of the future fees to be earned by the consultants. But the company itself has no asset, very little debt, and its balance sheet is pretty much irrelevant to its valuation. The other extreme is an investment fund, where the company is worth exactly the current market value of its assets, it has no other future revenues other than the expected incomes from these assets. A bank is somewhere in the middle. It is kind of an investment fund in the sense that all its assets are financial assets that can be sold pretty much at their book value (unlike a factory where the book value may mean very little in term of how much the asset is really worth). But the book value may differ from the fair market value (that's often the case if there are bad loans). But part of the value will also be generated from profits that are unrelated to these assets: fees on payment processing, advisory fees, trading income, etc. So part of the value is also a PV of future revenues. And these future revenues may be negative. If you look at the past 10 years, banks have experienced huge revenue volatility. From trading losses, fraud (Kerviel style), fines (like UBS here), bad loans (RBS and HBOS style), etc. And then you can have all sort of weird technicalities. Like the book value may be increased for gains on own credit (if the company fair values part of its liabilities). That's a paper gain that the market is unlikely to give any credit for.
  - brianpgordon 8y ago
    It seems like your back-of-the-envelope estimate is assuming that the market values UBS at exactly its assets minus its liabilities. This disregards goodwill, which (someone correct me if I'm wrong) includes expectations of future earnings. That number wouldn't even be affected in a straightforward way since banks, especially European banks, tend to be levered quite a bit in order to survive on interest income.
    - mruts 8y ago
      Goodwill is often counted as an asset (or a liability if they don’t want to pay taxes) on the company’s book. I’m not sure if UBS included it on theirs, though
      - brianpgordon 8y ago
        I believe that's just after an acquisition. Shares trading on the secondary market shouldn't really affect the company's balance sheet.
  - Someone 8y ago
    ”if we attribute this 4% delta entirely to the announcement, the market is guessing the actual penalty will amount to $1.84B” No, the market’s guess is $1.84B higher today than it was yesterday. The latter likely isn’t zero, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversies#French_tax_investigation:_2013%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversies#... states ”In July 2014, the bank was required to post a bond of 1.1 billion euros, which UBS complied with while making multiple appeals in the French court system, finally losing its appeal at the Cour de Cassation, France's highest court”
- jaimex2 8y ago
  I was wondering the same thing. Switzerland is not part of the EU either, what power does the French court have over them other than local branches?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    If UBS were to go down that route and succeed, I’d expect their ability to operate as a bank in the EU would be placed at risk. That would be more costly than paying whatever is due after exhausting legal appeals.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  They already paid a 1B€ “bail” (read in a dream has newspaper) before the court hearing. I am unfamiliar with the procedure, so I don’t know what kind of events would trigger a restitution (it’s not intuitive, because you can’t put a company in jail before the trial)
- kentosi 8y ago
  I want to be hopeful of this, but according to the article: "In the U.S., UBS is contesting charges from ... the financial crisis more than a decade ago." That was 10 years ago, and and it's still being argued in court. I can very well see this being another delayed settlement that will drag on for another decade or more.
misiti3780 8y ago
Another slap on the wrist. No one goes to jail because of Deferred Prosecution Agreements HSBC got fined about half that when they caught laundering money for the Mexican cartels a few years back. True story: HSBC had to design special teller windows because the standard ones were too small to fit the sacks of money that were being brought in and laundered. If you want to know why these guys don't go to jail, pull up a bottle of lithium and sit down with The Chickenshit Club.
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  Moneyland is another good book on this subject.
- AtHeartEngineer 8y ago
  It was 4.2 billion not million, it probably should have been more, but that's definitely not a slap on the wrist.
  - branchless 8y ago
    It's literally nothing to the top brass.
  - repsilat 8y ago
    Right. For context, that's around 9% if their $48 billion market cap. Much worse than sending any one person to jail. Also: in the US, I've heard the "value of saving a life" for some decision calculations to be assumed at ten million dollars. That's $200k per year for 50 years. (In New Zealand, from talking to some civil engineers, it is a lot lower.) At the American price, the fine is worth 420 human lives.
    - black_puppydog 8y ago
      I agree that this is more than a slap on the wrist, but I doubt that it's more effective as a deterrent than jailing the individuals involved. From what I understand, the banking industry is built almost entirely on a Rand'ian "every man for himself" ethos, with little attachment to the company involved. I don't see how you can then hope to incentivize these individuals by fining the company. Except if the suits were quick enough that most of them were still at UBS, to feel the consequences. But that's not desirable either.
rb808 8y ago
Big banks a such an easy target these days. Everyone in hates them and politicians love that because they can extract big fines. win-win-win. Until all the banks go under at least - US banks are mostly solvent still, European ones look like all the big ones will go under.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > Until all the banks go under If 2008 taught us anything it is the fact that big banks don't "go under" because they are considered "too big to fail" and as such will not be allowed to fail. The German term for this is "systemrelevant", (systemically important) which imho fits way better than "too big to fail" because it's way blunter.
contingencies 8y ago
I wonder if they will rethink their "fat billboards at Beijing airport" marketing strategy. Who wouldn't love to see China fine a Swiss bank?
Hermel 8y ago
We are shifting more and more towards a legal system where not only those who actually did something wrong (here the tax evaders), but also those whose services have been used to do so are considered guilty. Another example is copyright, where websites are increasingly held liable for user uploads. I'm not convinced that this is a good development.
- vkou 8y ago
  If a stranger walks up to you, and gives you $10,000 to drive a large, heavy, body-sized bag to the outskirts of town, and dump it in a river, I think most reasonable people would consider you to be at least an accessory to murder. On the other hand, if you were a department store clerk who sold that bag, most reasonable people would consider you in the clear. There's a spectrum for this sort of thing, and I think UBS was clearly on the 'knowingly profiting from crime' side of it.
  - nraynaud 8y ago
    I think we are talking about a company calling people to ask them if they have a bag to dispose of and organizing conferences on the fine art of bag disposal, a primer on material science, some workshops on bag design and the intricacies of selecting rivers. They were cold calling the customers accross the border, not closing their eyes on the paperwork associated with the money.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  You're exaggerating. Due diligence is a thing in most professional services. Banks have been complicit in money laundering and tax evasion for decades and they have shown that they have little interest in solving these issues.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    Software Developers have been complicit in copyright infringement for decades and they have shown that they have little interest in solving these issues. Just like bits have no color for you[1] dollars had no color for bankers for a long time. Stopping money laundering in your organization is just as much pain as stopping copyright infringement on your system. [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
laser 8y ago
What happens if a fine is greater than the value of a multi-national company's operations in a country? As $4.2 billion is ~10% of UBS's market cap, does UBS derive more than 10% of its value from within France? If not, might they just abandon operations in the country for the government to seize and avoid paying the fine, or would EU or international-level agreements or courts enforce payment? Anyone know of any precedent regarding such a scenario?
- foepys 8y ago
  They'd most likely request European Arrest Warrants for the CEO and most board members and seize all French assets. Then they'd go for the assets in all other EU countries.
- forty 8y ago
  If I owed you money and flee in another country, can't you generally sue me in that other country to get your money back?
- ovi256 8y ago
  Court orders can, and are, routinely enforced in other countries. The interested agent goes to country B courts with a decision from country A and asks for a local enforcement order. When granted, this has the same power as a court order from country B. Even if UBS decides to abandon all assets in France and never do business there again, agents of the French state can get the fine from UBS assets in other countries.
easytiger 8y ago
The predicate for this dates back a long way. I believe UBS were offered an initial sum of $1.1b to settle a few years ago and took it to trial [1] > The judges’ move followed a failed plea bargain between national financial prosecutors and UBS representatives, the first time such an out-of-court settlement was tested in France. French magistrates reportedly offered UBS to settle the case for 1.1 billion euros ($1.2 billion), after considering an initial deal of 2.2 billion euros ($2.4 billion). - 2017 However the basis was > The assets illegally concealed by French clients in Switzerland between 2004 and 2012 allegedly amounted some 10 billion euros ($10.75 billion). Another quote puts it at $600billion[2] I'd love to know the definition of "illegally concealed" in these circumstances The chances of it being reasonable I'd consider very slim; France is not a reasonable country nor is it run by reasonable people. France is a failing protection racket running out of people to shake down, by and large. When the people who run the socialist party government budget are offshoring their wealth - perhaps your country is fundamentally broken.[3] [1] https://www.apnews.com/2c7032c7d75a40728395587fd917517e https://www.apnews.com/2c7032c7d75a40728395587fd917517e [2] http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/04/europe-loses-billions-to-tax-evasion/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/04/europe-loses-billions-to-tax-... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/three-ex-ubs-officials-said-to-face-arrest-in-french-tax-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/three-ex-... Edit: Downvotes without comment. Not exactly productive conversation.
- mruts 8y ago
  I can see why you are being downvoted, but you are right, France isn't a very reasonable country. France has some of the most absurd, protectionist, socialist, anti-market laws the world has ever seen. Hopefully they are getting the message that their stodgy old world socialist world-view is self-defeating and unproductive. America has some problems, but there's a reason why they have a GDP 40x larger than France with only 5x the population.
  - ArnoVW 8y ago
    I won't enter into the policy discussions about wealth distribution, and you are right that the GDP per capita of the US is larger than that of Franc, but. The difference is more that of 43K vs 59K. So not 900%. In fact, the GDP per capita is 100$ less than that of the UK, and more than that of, for example, Japan or South Korea. Also of note may be that France, unlike the US, does not dispose of oil resources, which makes comparisons not quite as simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
juozas 8y ago
€3.7B ($4.2B) is last year profit. Fine is €4.5B($5.1) Here is link to not paywalled article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ubs-trial-fraud/ubs-to-appeal-after-fined-4-5-billion-euros-in-french-tax-fraud-case-idUSKCN1Q91DR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ubs-trial-fraud/ubs-to-ap... EDIT: Actually fine is €3.7 + €800m in damages.

217 points by bryanwbh 8y ago

No paywall https://outline.com/YSFyPN https://outline.com/YSFyPN

Does anyone know what the likelyhood of the 4.2B being paid out is? I imagine that UBS will go through all possible appeals processes. Also if the article is right in that this was affected by the protests, then that is a big win for protesting.

smallgovt 8y ago
UBS's market cap is $46B. After this was announced, their stock fell 4%. This drop, if permanent, would equate to a loss of ~$1.84B in market cap. There are many factors that could be influencing price, but if we attribute this 4% delta entirely to the announcement, the market is guessing the actual penalty will amount to $1.84B. This could be bc the market thinks UBS can appeal with a 50% success rate, or can negotiate the penalty down by 50% with high certainty. Edit: I hadn't considered tax implications. If UBS is able to deduct these penalties pre-tax (which I'd assume they would), then it suggests that they are very likely going to have to pay the full penalty. Of course, this is all guess work. e.g. the market could be scared that this sets a precedent for future additional penalties which would decrease the signalling towards full payment on this penalty.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  This isn't quite right -- The 4% loss could just represent the delta between what was already priced in and the actual loss. This case has been a long time coming so the expectation of the penalty should have been priced in long ago. Secondly, and it depends on the jurisdiction, but penalties and fees associated with wrongdoing generally aren't tax deductible. The US clarified this during the TCJA but most countries agree: https://www.clearyenforcementwatch.com/2018/02/1962/ https://www.clearyenforcementwatch.com/2018/02/1962/
  - repsilat 8y ago
    There's also that weirdness of financial companies having price-to-book less than one... (For UBS it's around 0.9. Don't ask me how it makes sense.)
    - calpaterson 8y ago
      Presumably that is down to straightforward doubt as to the value of UBS's book. It is not uncommon for unpopular companies that are holding a lot of their balance sheet at "market value" (as banks do) to trade at discounts to their stated book. Take a look at LSE:LAND, a "£10bn" REIT trading at a £6bn market cap.
    - mruts 8y ago
      Well, just as this case demonstrates, certain companies have exposure to other things (like paying a gargantuan fine) that would make their shareholder equity trade at a discount.
    - cm2187 8y ago
      There may be good reasons for that. First, there are two ways to value companies, depending on what kind of companies they are. The two extremes are on one side a consulting firm, where the value is worth only the present value of the future fees to be earned by the consultants. But the company itself has no asset, very little debt, and its balance sheet is pretty much irrelevant to its valuation. The other extreme is an investment fund, where the company is worth exactly the current market value of its assets, it has no other future revenues other than the expected incomes from these assets. A bank is somewhere in the middle. It is kind of an investment fund in the sense that all its assets are financial assets that can be sold pretty much at their book value (unlike a factory where the book value may mean very little in term of how much the asset is really worth). But the book value may differ from the fair market value (that's often the case if there are bad loans). But part of the value will also be generated from profits that are unrelated to these assets: fees on payment processing, advisory fees, trading income, etc. So part of the value is also a PV of future revenues. And these future revenues may be negative. If you look at the past 10 years, banks have experienced huge revenue volatility. From trading losses, fraud (Kerviel style), fines (like UBS here), bad loans (RBS and HBOS style), etc. And then you can have all sort of weird technicalities. Like the book value may be increased for gains on own credit (if the company fair values part of its liabilities). That's a paper gain that the market is unlikely to give any credit for.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  It seems like your back-of-the-envelope estimate is assuming that the market values UBS at exactly its assets minus its liabilities. This disregards goodwill, which (someone correct me if I'm wrong) includes expectations of future earnings. That number wouldn't even be affected in a straightforward way since banks, especially European banks, tend to be levered quite a bit in order to survive on interest income.
  - mruts 8y ago
    Goodwill is often counted as an asset (or a liability if they don’t want to pay taxes) on the company’s book. I’m not sure if UBS included it on theirs, though
    - brianpgordon 8y ago
      I believe that's just after an acquisition. Shares trading on the secondary market shouldn't really affect the company's balance sheet.
- Someone 8y ago
  ”if we attribute this 4% delta entirely to the announcement, the market is guessing the actual penalty will amount to $1.84B” No, the market’s guess is $1.84B higher today than it was yesterday. The latter likely isn’t zero, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversies#French_tax_investigation:_2013%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversies#... states ”In July 2014, the bank was required to post a bond of 1.1 billion euros, which UBS complied with while making multiple appeals in the French court system, finally losing its appeal at the Cour de Cassation, France's highest court”
jaimex2 8y ago
I was wondering the same thing. Switzerland is not part of the EU either, what power does the French court have over them other than local branches?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  If UBS were to go down that route and succeed, I’d expect their ability to operate as a bank in the EU would be placed at risk. That would be more costly than paying whatever is due after exhausting legal appeals.
nraynaud 8y ago
They already paid a 1B€ “bail” (read in a dream has newspaper) before the court hearing. I am unfamiliar with the procedure, so I don’t know what kind of events would trigger a restitution (it’s not intuitive, because you can’t put a company in jail before the trial)
kentosi 8y ago
I want to be hopeful of this, but according to the article: "In the U.S., UBS is contesting charges from ... the financial crisis more than a decade ago." That was 10 years ago, and and it's still being argued in court. I can very well see this being another delayed settlement that will drag on for another decade or more.

misiti3780 8y ago

Another slap on the wrist. No one goes to jail because of Deferred Prosecution Agreements HSBC got fined about half that when they caught laundering money for the Mexican cartels a few years back. True story: HSBC had to design special teller windows because the standard ones were too small to fit the sacks of money that were being brought in and laundered. If you want to know why these guys don't go to jail, pull up a bottle of lithium and sit down with The Chickenshit Club.

diogenescynic 8y ago
Moneyland is another good book on this subject.
AtHeartEngineer 8y ago
It was 4.2 billion not million, it probably should have been more, but that's definitely not a slap on the wrist.
- branchless 8y ago
  It's literally nothing to the top brass.
- repsilat 8y ago
  Right. For context, that's around 9% if their $48 billion market cap. Much worse than sending any one person to jail. Also: in the US, I've heard the "value of saving a life" for some decision calculations to be assumed at ten million dollars. That's $200k per year for 50 years. (In New Zealand, from talking to some civil engineers, it is a lot lower.) At the American price, the fine is worth 420 human lives.
  - black_puppydog 8y ago
    I agree that this is more than a slap on the wrist, but I doubt that it's more effective as a deterrent than jailing the individuals involved. From what I understand, the banking industry is built almost entirely on a Rand'ian "every man for himself" ethos, with little attachment to the company involved. I don't see how you can then hope to incentivize these individuals by fining the company. Except if the suits were quick enough that most of them were still at UBS, to feel the consequences. But that's not desirable either.

rb808 8y ago

Big banks a such an easy target these days. Everyone in hates them and politicians love that because they can extract big fines. win-win-win. Until all the banks go under at least - US banks are mostly solvent still, European ones look like all the big ones will go under.

freeflight 8y ago
> Until all the banks go under If 2008 taught us anything it is the fact that big banks don't "go under" because they are considered "too big to fail" and as such will not be allowed to fail. The German term for this is "systemrelevant", (systemically important) which imho fits way better than "too big to fail" because it's way blunter.

contingencies 8y ago

I wonder if they will rethink their "fat billboards at Beijing airport" marketing strategy. Who wouldn't love to see China fine a Swiss bank?

Hermel 8y ago

We are shifting more and more towards a legal system where not only those who actually did something wrong (here the tax evaders), but also those whose services have been used to do so are considered guilty. Another example is copyright, where websites are increasingly held liable for user uploads. I'm not convinced that this is a good development.

vkou 8y ago
If a stranger walks up to you, and gives you $10,000 to drive a large, heavy, body-sized bag to the outskirts of town, and dump it in a river, I think most reasonable people would consider you to be at least an accessory to murder. On the other hand, if you were a department store clerk who sold that bag, most reasonable people would consider you in the clear. There's a spectrum for this sort of thing, and I think UBS was clearly on the 'knowingly profiting from crime' side of it.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  I think we are talking about a company calling people to ask them if they have a bag to dispose of and organizing conferences on the fine art of bag disposal, a primer on material science, some workshops on bag design and the intricacies of selecting rivers. They were cold calling the customers accross the border, not closing their eyes on the paperwork associated with the money.
Daishiman 8y ago
You're exaggerating. Due diligence is a thing in most professional services. Banks have been complicit in money laundering and tax evasion for decades and they have shown that they have little interest in solving these issues.
- lixtra 8y ago
  Software Developers have been complicit in copyright infringement for decades and they have shown that they have little interest in solving these issues. Just like bits have no color for you[1] dollars had no color for bankers for a long time. Stopping money laundering in your organization is just as much pain as stopping copyright infringement on your system. [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

laser 8y ago

What happens if a fine is greater than the value of a multi-national company's operations in a country? As $4.2 billion is ~10% of UBS's market cap, does UBS derive more than 10% of its value from within France? If not, might they just abandon operations in the country for the government to seize and avoid paying the fine, or would EU or international-level agreements or courts enforce payment? Anyone know of any precedent regarding such a scenario?

foepys 8y ago
They'd most likely request European Arrest Warrants for the CEO and most board members and seize all French assets. Then they'd go for the assets in all other EU countries.
forty 8y ago
If I owed you money and flee in another country, can't you generally sue me in that other country to get your money back?
ovi256 8y ago
Court orders can, and are, routinely enforced in other countries. The interested agent goes to country B courts with a decision from country A and asks for a local enforcement order. When granted, this has the same power as a court order from country B. Even if UBS decides to abandon all assets in France and never do business there again, agents of the French state can get the fine from UBS assets in other countries.

easytiger 8y ago

The predicate for this dates back a long way. I believe UBS were offered an initial sum of $1.1b to settle a few years ago and took it to trial [1] > The judges’ move followed a failed plea bargain between national financial prosecutors and UBS representatives, the first time such an out-of-court settlement was tested in France. French magistrates reportedly offered UBS to settle the case for 1.1 billion euros ($1.2 billion), after considering an initial deal of 2.2 billion euros ($2.4 billion). - 2017 However the basis was > The assets illegally concealed by French clients in Switzerland between 2004 and 2012 allegedly amounted some 10 billion euros ($10.75 billion). Another quote puts it at $600billion[2] I'd love to know the definition of "illegally concealed" in these circumstances The chances of it being reasonable I'd consider very slim; France is not a reasonable country nor is it run by reasonable people. France is a failing protection racket running out of people to shake down, by and large. When the people who run the socialist party government budget are offshoring their wealth - perhaps your country is fundamentally broken.[3] [1] https://www.apnews.com/2c7032c7d75a40728395587fd917517e https://www.apnews.com/2c7032c7d75a40728395587fd917517e [2] http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/04/europe-loses-billions-to-tax-evasion/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/04/europe-loses-billions-to-tax-... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/three-ex-ubs-officials-said-to-face-arrest-in-french-tax-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/three-ex-... Edit: Downvotes without comment. Not exactly productive conversation.

mruts 8y ago
I can see why you are being downvoted, but you are right, France isn't a very reasonable country. France has some of the most absurd, protectionist, socialist, anti-market laws the world has ever seen. Hopefully they are getting the message that their stodgy old world socialist world-view is self-defeating and unproductive. America has some problems, but there's a reason why they have a GDP 40x larger than France with only 5x the population.
- ArnoVW 8y ago
  I won't enter into the policy discussions about wealth distribution, and you are right that the GDP per capita of the US is larger than that of Franc, but. The difference is more that of 43K vs 59K. So not 900%. In fact, the GDP per capita is 100$ less than that of the UK, and more than that of, for example, Japan or South Korea. Also of note may be that France, unlike the US, does not dispose of oil resources, which makes comparisons not quite as simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

juozas 8y ago

€3.7B ($4.2B) is last year profit. Fine is €4.5B($5.1) Here is link to not paywalled article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ubs-trial-fraud/ubs-to-appeal-after-fined-4-5-billion-euros-in-french-tax-fraud-case-idUSKCN1Q91DR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ubs-trial-fraud/ubs-to-ap... EDIT: Actually fine is €3.7 + €800m in damages.