The also know what they are doing instead of trying to reverse engineer it like these studies are.
I have noticed nothing "pejorative" in the language used in the document. I'd be more pejorative myself. The individuals with accounts are described clinically - "high net worth individuals". The ethics of using the leaked data is examined.
The situation that individuals with these accounts may be committing crimes is also described dispassionately. It is a fact that these accounts are often used for the crime of tax evasion. Do you want to dispute this fact? Or do you want language that tries avoid any mention of this likelihood? That would be less "pejorative" I suppose.
Edit: OK, the Mel Brooks quote is an exception to the generally clinical language. But by that point the author has made their case and should get at least a little cookie.
First page after the abstract
"It is this information asymmetry that gives rise to a host of problems" as opposed to benefits?
This study is fairly balanced but chooses to only focus on illegal tax evasion by the wealthy and corrupt behavior of public officials. Instead of legal tax deferment or avoidance.
Why is every second reply in this comment thread trying to deflect away from the documented widespread, commonplace fraud that constitutes a wealth transfer away from common taxpayers?
The history of state revenue sources has been much broader than the last 100 years of worrying about whether everyone is getting hosed equally. High tax jurisdictions who will never balance their budget are in a quagmire of their own design, and they lack the consensus mechanisms to do anything about it. They are failed states in this regard and that has nothing to do with rest of the world.
What 'benefit' is derived from Congolese President's ability to have 'hidden' accounts on the Isle of Man, instead of accounts that are available to be scrutinized by Congolese authorities?
Like I said, its actually strange to focus on corrupt behavior of public officials to say another country is the problem and not the corrupt official. A reason this is strange that you might not have considered is that more universally respected countries such as the US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens as the smaller countries they complain about. As well as access to international markets. So focus on the corrupt person, or educate on how to use more competitive jurisdictions instead of being manipulated into the small country tax haven meme. Its just larger economic unions exempting themselves from scrutiny and saying other countries are the problem.
? That is not a 'benefit' of hidden bank accounts.
"US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens"
They don't really. Nations have tax treaties to avoid this kind of stuff. While there are loopholes etc. it's not going to be a good idea to keep stolen money in London, it will get frozen.
"So focus on the corrupt person" - the corruption is enabled by banking secrecy. A big focus on corruption is going after hidden networks.
You are conflating several concepts:
If you don’t want assets frozen then don’t use banks, they haven't been necessary for an entire decade. Bearer-everything is back in vogue.
What happened to innocent until guilty?
Hell I've got an account in an offshore jurisdiction. I guess I need to go do some introspection about my "crime of tax evasion"...
I see. And the innocent ones? Just acceptable collateral damage in your guilty by association campaign?
The irony is that likely you and everyone else probably has a fair chunk of their net wealth flowing through these types of structures via their pension/insurance.
Pension funds don't just hop onto Robinhood app and buy a 100MM basket of shares. It gets structured through places like these. Same for large chunks of the cross jurisdiction M&A activity.
Unfortunately it's all confidential so the people that know can't talk, and everyone else has knowledge/opinion made up entirely out of clickbait and stuff like this...someone patching together a "how the elites screw you" article based on patchy partial leaks. The notion of patching together something that is global based on one leak from one bank in one jurisdiction is comical in itself. It's like looking at the left rear tyre of a car and speculating that cars are probably all scams because you can't see what makes it move forward.
The information asymetry is insane and 99.99% of the world is on the wrong side of it.
Alas...rage on hn
Courts disagree.
The primary form of investment firms (PE firms) rely on an "onshore" feeder, for certain countries taxable persons to invest into, and an "offshore" feeder for everyone else as well as those same countries non-taxable persons (charities, retirement plans) to invest into. The offshore feeder typically being an offshore corporation taxed only at the entity level, in a place that does not levy tax on the kinds of transactions conducted, and in many cases also means banking and brokerage accounts offshore. But it also means banking and brokerage accounts onshore under the name of the offshore entity, because it is completely legal and the relevant financial professionals are completely familiar with it.
Status in our society is based on understanding whose opinion matters, and that is the executive and judicial branch, while the legislative branch and head of states pretends to act like they are in an adversarial relationship with people that keep their money.
I'll add that to my reading list alongside the 'climate change' reports written by the global petrochemical industry, and the reports written by hedge-fund traders on what really happened in the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm telling you, and everyone, that the entire phrasing of "leaks" and "secret" and "loopholes" is either complete clickbait or the musing of the completely ignorant, and both of those outcomes means you should go to the actual source of truth instead of bothering with this wealth-porn.
And yet you want to argue that. Plato-esque.
that has nothing to do with client data, which is "secret" even in the "I overpaid my percentage of taxes onshore by not deducting anything" world
Where I think we have a significant difference of opinion is whether something should be done to rectify the question of hiding assets offshore.
I do personally hate ignorance and always had high marks on reading comprehension, our conversation was exclusively congruent with me saying a different source of truth conforms to reality and the authorities in this reality.
But aren't they in bed with the companies using these schemes?