7 ms·

I don't think this is limited to Russian oligarchs, I thought that because of its trust and crown dependencies system, London is a popular place for people to h

by ayngg 5y ago

I don't think this is limited to Russian oligarchs, I thought that because of its trust and crown dependencies system, London is a popular place for people to hide this kind of stuff. Russian oligarchs and other unsavory individuals like corrupt leaders in Africa, the Middle East and the developing world all dump their ill gotten gains into the opaque system away from prying eyes. The stuff you can actually see, like mansions in Knightsbridge are probably just the tiniest tip of the iceberg, everything else is held in such opaque ways that nobody even knows who it actually belongs to. It is so blatant that you couldn't really call it a dirty secret.

eevilspock 5y ago
Oh everything and everyone is for sale. I mean look, most of us have sold our souls so that we can get free web search and free email, and cheap delivery of goods to our doorstep at the touch of button on our iPhones. We prefer to look the other way if not outright deny the huge social costs of an ad-supported web, of the costs to the planet of our one-click to our doorstep shopping convenience in terms of plastic, paper and energy use, and how much of these conveniences rest on the exploitation of people who have no choice but to work for as little as possible, a tiny fraction of what we get paid.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  I don't think the average person has much choice in term of whether they use ad-based products or not. Where do you go to pay for a search engine? Even paid newspapers and paid cable TV is serving us ads.
  - eevilspock 5y ago
    The key is that we don't try very hard to resist these things. Maybe some social media posts, or a comment on HN, or a vote on election day. All things that are free (oh there's that word again) and don't require us to actually give up anything. Because that's exactly what morality is about: the giving up of something that benefits you but causes harm to someone else. How many people choose to take a pay cut to work for as socially responsible company as they can? How many forgo the convenience and time savings of Amazon and shop at places that are more expensive because they are local small businesses or businesses that pay and treat their workers better? How many spend less on gadgets and luxuries and redirect those funds to making the world better, or to enable them to take the aforementioned socially responsible pay cut? How many advantaged people forgo using that advantage to gentrify neighborhoods and displace the disadvantaged to less desirable places? How many advantaged people forgo hoarding education resources for their children at the expense of children for whom society is already rigged against (e.g. liberal NYC has the most segregated schools in the country)?
    - johnrob 5y ago
      I wish there were a named concept for doing the exact opposite of the example habits you’ve listed here. Right now (literally right now), anyone who can reduce/avoid using gasoline should do so to minimize the price increase levied on those who need it to drive to work. If you did this - not only would nobody reward you, I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed. This is a challenge and opportunity for humanity.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        It is always been the truth that small positive Deeds are unrecognized. I think the fact that people expect recognition for them is half the problem. Nobody should need a gold star or pick up a piece of litter or conserving gas in a crisis. They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition
        eevilspock 5y ago
        GP: > I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed Agreed. Despite my tone above I think we can evolve to that, but this kind of evolution: > They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition requires cultural evolution on a different track than we are on. Our current culture has taken individualism and individual entitlement to an extreme, and we are spreading that around the world. Our economic system elevates selfishness to a virtue. And what people actually do when no one is looking is grab more cookies for themself from the cookie jar (and when people are looking they'll "share" that pilfered cookie with someone who has less).
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I don't think individualism is synonymous with selfishness or entitlement. >> I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed I think this mentality exemplifies selfishness more than individualism, and is in fact anti-individualist. The idea that goodness requires recognition is a denial of independent self worth and personal values outside of a social framework. It speaks of a postmodern moral relativism, and an inability to recognize good or act without collective permission and instruction to do so.
matthowe 5y ago
Agreed that it isn't limited to Russians, but I do think there is a scale difference when it comes to the ultra-wealthy from Russia. For example, when I was home in London a few years ago we had dinner at a fancy Chinese restaurant in Mayfair. My wife and I were chatting with the Maître D' for a bit, and he told us that they scheduled their host staff such that at least one person was present at all times who could converse fluently in Russian, in order to cater to their big spenders. I know this is only an anecdote but I do think it is uniquely specific to Russian oligarchs. Aside from Harrods, which have specific staff to converse with the wealthy from China, the ME, etc. I didn't encounter a similar form of catering/pandering to the wealthy Chinese, Middle Easterners, etc. elsewhere.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Stevvo 5y ago
  The difference is more in style than scale. Middle-eastern royalty own more property in London but they buy unassumingly buy large developments with many tenants, whereas the oligarchs tend the buy more vanity mansions.
rr808 5y ago
Its not even about hiding. If you were a FANG developer with a few million and you are from Russia/Venezuela/Syria/Zimbabwe/Argentina what would you do with your assets? London property is a solid investment.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  It's not proving so solid for Russians anymore.
- bestouff 5y ago
  Even since brexit ? I'm not so sure.
- GFischer 5y ago
  If you're from Venezuela or Argentina you buy real estate in Uruguay. Check Punta del Este.
908B64B197 5y ago
> like corrupt leaders in Africa, the Middle East and the developing world all dump their ill gotten gains into the opaque system away from prying eyes. Not just limited to London. Vancouver is a prime example of that thanks to an out of control immigration policy coupled with almost no enforcement for financial crimes [0]. Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there. I believe a few years ago Canada eliminated the immigration category that lets you move there just based on wealth.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    Were you thinking of the Provincial Nominee Program(PNP)? https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/provincial-nominees/works.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      No - the federal government had different categories of immigration, and one of them was wealth based. They eliminated that category a few years ago.
rosndo 5y ago
London is also popular because it is the best city in the world to live in if you have a lot of money. London has been very important for a very very long time. This may even play a bigger part than any regulatory environment, especially in a world where English is the lingua franca.
- rurban 5y ago
  the usual polls show Vienna being the best big city to live in, and for smaller cities there's always the Riviera or Marbella ahead.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Those polls are for poor people. I can tell you from experience that Vienna is a shithole compared to London if you have a 100k+/mo budget.
    - CuriouslyC 5y ago
      If you're stupid wealthy you're not really tied to one place. Maybe london is the only place that has underground cabals that will torture a child in front of you for a million dollars, but nobody wants to torture children every day. The rest of the days, maybe you want to relax in a mountain villa somewhere warmer with nice ocean breezes and lots of sun.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    This. London is a good city but being a finance hub that is friendly to outside investment is the real draw. There are other cities with much better architecture, food, art, culture, etc than London but I doubt anyone in Europe is better at providing financial services and to extreme wealth.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > London has been very important for a very very long time. This seems like a critical component. In the US or Canada, there is no "old money" in the European-magnitude sense. In the UK, on the other hand, there are a lot of structures that seem to straddle oligarchy and democracy (see: accuser burden of proof libel laws mentioned in article). There are not just different options for ultra wealthy, but experienced options, staffed by people who have been doing this for decades, at firms who have been doing this for centuries. Opaque South Dakota trusts look quaint against that depth of historically-earned competency.

by ayngg 5y ago

eevilspock 5y ago

Oh everything and everyone is for sale. I mean look, most of us have sold our souls so that we can get free web search and free email, and cheap delivery of goods to our doorstep at the touch of button on our iPhones. We prefer to look the other way if not outright deny the huge social costs of an ad-supported web, of the costs to the planet of our one-click to our doorstep shopping convenience in terms of plastic, paper and energy use, and how much of these conveniences rest on the exploitation of people who have no choice but to work for as little as possible, a tiny fraction of what we get paid.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AYBABTME 5y ago
I don't think the average person has much choice in term of whether they use ad-based products or not. Where do you go to pay for a search engine? Even paid newspapers and paid cable TV is serving us ads.
- eevilspock 5y ago
  The key is that we don't try very hard to resist these things. Maybe some social media posts, or a comment on HN, or a vote on election day. All things that are free (oh there's that word again) and don't require us to actually give up anything. Because that's exactly what morality is about: the giving up of something that benefits you but causes harm to someone else. How many people choose to take a pay cut to work for as socially responsible company as they can? How many forgo the convenience and time savings of Amazon and shop at places that are more expensive because they are local small businesses or businesses that pay and treat their workers better? How many spend less on gadgets and luxuries and redirect those funds to making the world better, or to enable them to take the aforementioned socially responsible pay cut? How many advantaged people forgo using that advantage to gentrify neighborhoods and displace the disadvantaged to less desirable places? How many advantaged people forgo hoarding education resources for their children at the expense of children for whom society is already rigged against (e.g. liberal NYC has the most segregated schools in the country)?
  - johnrob 5y ago
    I wish there were a named concept for doing the exact opposite of the example habits you’ve listed here. Right now (literally right now), anyone who can reduce/avoid using gasoline should do so to minimize the price increase levied on those who need it to drive to work. If you did this - not only would nobody reward you, I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed. This is a challenge and opportunity for humanity.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It is always been the truth that small positive Deeds are unrecognized. I think the fact that people expect recognition for them is half the problem. Nobody should need a gold star or pick up a piece of litter or conserving gas in a crisis. They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition
      - eevilspock 5y ago
        GP: > I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed Agreed. Despite my tone above I think we can evolve to that, but this kind of evolution: > They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition requires cultural evolution on a different track than we are on. Our current culture has taken individualism and individual entitlement to an extreme, and we are spreading that around the world. Our economic system elevates selfishness to a virtue. And what people actually do when no one is looking is grab more cookies for themself from the cookie jar (and when people are looking they'll "share" that pilfered cookie with someone who has less).
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I don't think individualism is synonymous with selfishness or entitlement. >> I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed I think this mentality exemplifies selfishness more than individualism, and is in fact anti-individualist. The idea that goodness requires recognition is a denial of independent self worth and personal values outside of a social framework. It speaks of a postmodern moral relativism, and an inability to recognize good or act without collective permission and instruction to do so.

matthowe 5y ago

Agreed that it isn't limited to Russians, but I do think there is a scale difference when it comes to the ultra-wealthy from Russia. For example, when I was home in London a few years ago we had dinner at a fancy Chinese restaurant in Mayfair. My wife and I were chatting with the Maître D' for a bit, and he told us that they scheduled their host staff such that at least one person was present at all times who could converse fluently in Russian, in order to cater to their big spenders. I know this is only an anecdote but I do think it is uniquely specific to Russian oligarchs. Aside from Harrods, which have specific staff to converse with the wealthy from China, the ME, etc. I didn't encounter a similar form of catering/pandering to the wealthy Chinese, Middle Easterners, etc. elsewhere.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Stevvo 5y ago
The difference is more in style than scale. Middle-eastern royalty own more property in London but they buy unassumingly buy large developments with many tenants, whereas the oligarchs tend the buy more vanity mansions.

rr808 5y ago

Its not even about hiding. If you were a FANG developer with a few million and you are from Russia/Venezuela/Syria/Zimbabwe/Argentina what would you do with your assets? London property is a solid investment.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
It's not proving so solid for Russians anymore.
bestouff 5y ago
Even since brexit ? I'm not so sure.
GFischer 5y ago
If you're from Venezuela or Argentina you buy real estate in Uruguay. Check Punta del Este.

908B64B197 5y ago

> like corrupt leaders in Africa, the Middle East and the developing world all dump their ill gotten gains into the opaque system away from prying eyes. Not just limited to London. Vancouver is a prime example of that thanks to an out of control immigration policy coupled with almost no enforcement for financial crimes [0]. Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing

BeetleB 5y ago
> Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there. I believe a few years ago Canada eliminated the immigration category that lets you move there just based on wealth.
- earleybird 5y ago
  Were you thinking of the Provincial Nominee Program(PNP)? https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/provincial-nominees/works.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    No - the federal government had different categories of immigration, and one of them was wealth based. They eliminated that category a few years ago.

rosndo 5y ago

London is also popular because it is the best city in the world to live in if you have a lot of money. London has been very important for a very very long time. This may even play a bigger part than any regulatory environment, especially in a world where English is the lingua franca.

rurban 5y ago
the usual polls show Vienna being the best big city to live in, and for smaller cities there's always the Riviera or Marbella ahead.
- rosndo 5y ago
  Those polls are for poor people. I can tell you from experience that Vienna is a shithole compared to London if you have a 100k+/mo budget.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    If you're stupid wealthy you're not really tied to one place. Maybe london is the only place that has underground cabals that will torture a child in front of you for a million dollars, but nobody wants to torture children every day. The rest of the days, maybe you want to relax in a mountain villa somewhere warmer with nice ocean breezes and lots of sun.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  This. London is a good city but being a finance hub that is friendly to outside investment is the real draw. There are other cities with much better architecture, food, art, culture, etc than London but I doubt anyone in Europe is better at providing financial services and to extreme wealth.
ethbr0 5y ago
> London has been very important for a very very long time. This seems like a critical component. In the US or Canada, there is no "old money" in the European-magnitude sense. In the UK, on the other hand, there are a lot of structures that seem to straddle oligarchy and democracy (see: accuser burden of proof libel laws mentioned in article). There are not just different options for ultra wealthy, but experienced options, staffed by people who have been doing this for decades, at firms who have been doing this for centuries. Opaque South Dakota trusts look quaint against that depth of historically-earned competency.