Hacker News Reader

Comment by ayngg | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

> 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

> 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.

Were you thinking of the Provincial Nominee Program(PNP)?

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP

No - the federal government had different categories of immigration, and one of them was wealth based. They eliminated that category a few years 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.

It's not proving so solid for Russians anymore.

Even since brexit ? I'm not so sure.

If you're from Venezuela or Argentina you buy real estate in Uruguay.

Check Punta del Este.

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.

> 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.

But no US or Canadian city can compete on quality of life even if you fully ignore all the financial infrastructure.

Cities in the US or Canada that offer comparable accommodation, eating and shopping opportunities are pretty miserable places to live in. Central London is beautiful, green and wonderful to walk around. It takes a very specific kind of person to enjoy walking around Manhattan on a regular basis.

London is also conveniently located wrt. top holiday destinations like the Alps and south of France.

London offers so much more to the oligarchy than just banks and lawyers.

Fuck, what other cities reliably offer Uber Lux? And I don’t mean the watered down American version with Suburbans and the likes.

The oligarchs will still remain in London even if draconian KYC laws might force them to rent instead of own, there aren’t any realistic alternatives.

Of course the “normies” will never understand this, they can’t even imagine the lifestyle. They have no idea what other great cities lack, because they’d never even dream of needing such services.

It is a little bit of both influencing each other, but the system in London is definitely the killer app. My understanding of the history is that there are systems that have been entrenched in the London financial industry going back centuries due to the unique history of the City of London and how it administrates itself separately from the rest of England/ GB. It was the global hub during pax brittania, and remained the financial hub of the world after the war thanks to the Eurodollar. It was at this point that tax systems were devised involving their crown dependencies to obfuscate everything which made it a popular place to launder money. A lot of the opulence has developed along side over all these years.

So it was the case that London was the city of the world during the empire which made it the candidate for running the Eurodollar system to rebuild Europe which cemented its place as the financial capital of the world up until America financialized their economy in the late 70s, its colonies allowed for unique tax systems which made it even more popular.

I got most of this from the book entitled Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World by Nicholas Shaxson, and the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8 that was inspired by it.

> It is a little bit of both influencing each other, but the system in London is definitely the killer app

I’m super unconvinced this is true. I know many “oligarchs” living in London, most of them do not keep their money in the UK.

I think the people writing about London from a tax haven/money laundering perspective tend to have rather little insight into the quality of life aspect. It’s easy for them to mistakenly assume that the system is the main draw, but the reality on the ground seems rather different.

For very rich people that want to live in a city, London is absolutely the #1 destination.

I am not saying the reason London in popular is only because of laundering, it is self evident that it is one of the major cosmopolitan metro areas in the world, but I am saying for launderers, London is a top destination. They have been the capital for the financial world for well over a century, you could even say the first globalized world with the Empire, with that there is a lot of money in the city, a lot of money in the city naturally creates the amenities, infrastructure, institutions and lifestyles that appeal and cater to that money over time (laundering being just one of those things), which in turn makes the city more attractive to people with money, creating a virtuous cycle. London exists at the intersection of new and old world globalism, no other city has even been in the game long enough to even compare.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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

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).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com