7 ms·

I believe that the big win here is the 'Monitor'. Having it publicly that one of the worlds largest tax havens has agreed to have a monitoring like functionalit

I believe that the big win here is the 'Monitor'. Having it publicly that one of the worlds largest tax havens has agreed to have a monitoring like functionality employed is a huge hit to the entire tax evasion industry. It will(should) make large tax evaders worried that other banks are doing the same thing without public notification, as parts of other plea deals. This monitoring thing, could be a significant deterrent and informant. This kind of thing is especially problematic for the types of wealthy that have to worry about public opinion, politicians and employees of publicly traded or well known companies etc.

downandout 12y ago
I'm not sure it's a "win". The reality is that this will quickly drive business away from one of Switzerland's largest banks. As a result, the Swiss will start going back to their old policies and their cooperation in recent years will cease. It is for this reason that they have only brought civil charges in the past. Eric Holder appears to be out of his depth on this one. All this did was reopen one of the world's largest tax havens.
- us0r 12y ago
  From a few years ago but I found this quite interesting. This guy earned $2.5 million per month in prison. He probably had no idea: "Sentenced to a 40-month federal prison term in 2009 for his role in a tax evasion conspiracy involving offshore American accounts, former Swiss banker Bradley Birkenfeld elicited sympathetic comments from some observers who said the hefty sentence was likely to discourage other whistleblowers from cooperating with the government." "But the former UBS AG employee's situation has recently taken a significant turn for the better. Now 47 and out of prison, he is to receive a $104 million Internal Revenue Service whistleblower award for his work in helping the feds pursue over $5 billion in unpaid taxes on unreported assets at Zurich-based UBS and other offshore banks" http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-banker_birkenfeld_gets_104m_for_ubs_case_cooperation_may_be_biggest_us_w/ http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-banker_birkenfeld_...
  - downandout 12y ago
    Criminal charges against individuals (though rare) have long been part of the mix, but charging the actual bank entity can have a devastating impact on the company and all of its employees. A felony conviction against an organization disqualifies it from many core business activities, and many large corporations have bylaws prohibiting them transacting with such entities. Insurance companies won't underwrite them on certain things or charge higher rates etc. A perfect example of this is Arthur Anderson.
Frozenlock 12y ago
I believe this is a big loss. Exactly for the reasons you stated. Funny, isn't it?
mindcrime 12y ago
I believe that the big win here is the 'Monitor'. Having it publicly that one of the worlds largest tax havens has agreed to have a monitoring like functionality employed is a huge hit to the entire tax evasion industry. I don't see that as a "win" for anybody, unless you count the IRS as "somebody" (I don't).
- jonathankoren 12y ago
  I don't understand this sentiment. We need roads. We need cops. We need schools. We need things. As a society, we pay for these things through taxes. When you don't pay your taxes, you're stealing from all of us. Even someone that despises taxes, can understand the free rider problem.
  - anateus 12y ago
    The things you listed account for about 10% of the US federal budget [1]. For the other things we pay waaaay more per capita than almost all other OECD nations. [1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
    - fpgeek 12y ago
      I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong with tax and spending policies. If the taxing authority routinely fails to collect the taxes that are on the books, there's a more basic problem with the rule of law. There are ways to fix that problem other than stepping up enforcement (e.g. changing the easily evaded taxes, for instance), but it is a fundamental governance problem that can't be ignored.
  - noipv4 12y ago
    Taxes prop up a fiat currency, which by definition is generated out of thin air. Govt does not need taxes to pay for the aforementioned things you mentioned, it can simply generate the required money.
    - 12y ago

downandout 12y ago

I'm not sure it's a "win". The reality is that this will quickly drive business away from one of Switzerland's largest banks. As a result, the Swiss will start going back to their old policies and their cooperation in recent years will cease. It is for this reason that they have only brought civil charges in the past. Eric Holder appears to be out of his depth on this one. All this did was reopen one of the world's largest tax havens.

us0r 12y ago
From a few years ago but I found this quite interesting. This guy earned $2.5 million per month in prison. He probably had no idea: "Sentenced to a 40-month federal prison term in 2009 for his role in a tax evasion conspiracy involving offshore American accounts, former Swiss banker Bradley Birkenfeld elicited sympathetic comments from some observers who said the hefty sentence was likely to discourage other whistleblowers from cooperating with the government." "But the former UBS AG employee's situation has recently taken a significant turn for the better. Now 47 and out of prison, he is to receive a $104 million Internal Revenue Service whistleblower award for his work in helping the feds pursue over $5 billion in unpaid taxes on unreported assets at Zurich-based UBS and other offshore banks" http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-banker_birkenfeld_gets_104m_for_ubs_case_cooperation_may_be_biggest_us_w/ http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-banker_birkenfeld_...
- downandout 12y ago
  Criminal charges against individuals (though rare) have long been part of the mix, but charging the actual bank entity can have a devastating impact on the company and all of its employees. A felony conviction against an organization disqualifies it from many core business activities, and many large corporations have bylaws prohibiting them transacting with such entities. Insurance companies won't underwrite them on certain things or charge higher rates etc. A perfect example of this is Arthur Anderson.

Frozenlock 12y ago

I believe this is a big loss. Exactly for the reasons you stated. Funny, isn't it?

mindcrime 12y ago

jonathankoren 12y ago
I don't understand this sentiment. We need roads. We need cops. We need schools. We need things. As a society, we pay for these things through taxes. When you don't pay your taxes, you're stealing from all of us. Even someone that despises taxes, can understand the free rider problem.
- anateus 12y ago
  The things you listed account for about 10% of the US federal budget [1]. For the other things we pay waaaay more per capita than almost all other OECD nations. [1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
  - fpgeek 12y ago
    I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong with tax and spending policies. If the taxing authority routinely fails to collect the taxes that are on the books, there's a more basic problem with the rule of law. There are ways to fix that problem other than stepping up enforcement (e.g. changing the easily evaded taxes, for instance), but it is a fundamental governance problem that can't be ignored.
- noipv4 12y ago
  Taxes prop up a fiat currency, which by definition is generated out of thin air. Govt does not need taxes to pay for the aforementioned things you mentioned, it can simply generate the required money.
  - 12y ago