Panama Papers: Court acquits all 28 charged with money laundering | Hacker News Reader

Panama Papers: Court acquits all 28 charged with money laundering

bbc.com

117 pointsatombender50 comments

Headline is misleading if you don’t read the article: This only refers to one judge in Panama dismissing a set of charges.

Many other people around the world have been charged in connection with the Panama Papers leak.

It’s not very surprising that a judge in Panama is dropping charges related to the leak. The entire reason this scheme was operated in Panama was because the legal system there is favorable to such schemes.

That doesn’t mean people are free to evade the laws of their own home countries, though. Prosecutions continue based on what was released. Several people in the US have been successfully prosecuted, for example.

The headline makes it sound like everybody got away with everything everywhere, which plays into the doomerism angle. It’s just bait though. Panama was always going to go easy on the Panamanian charges. That’s exactly why they did this in Panama!

It’s not misleading? The article discusses the direct charges towards Mossack Fonseca, the literal mastermind of the tax evasion scheme. They are Panamian, so of course they would be tried in Panama and not elsewhere.

Judging by all the comments here, a lot of people interpreted it as thought “all” people charged in conjunction with the Panama Papers (everywhere) got away with it, because the headline says “all”

My interpretation is that most people in these comments were correctly able to understand why "28" immediately came after "all".

Scroll down to see the comments from people claiming “literally nothing happened” from the Panama papers, which they see this headline as confirming. As I write this, that thread is the 2nd comment thread from the top. It’s a very popular sentiment, despite being wrong.

That’s literally just one of many other comment threads.

You’d have to also know that 28 is not the total number of people charged.

The headline says that's all that were charged. If I write "all four coal plants in germany blown up", nobody reads that and thinks germany had anything more or fewer than four coal plants. You don't need to know the total number because it tells you with "all [number] [objects]"

If you wrote “all 4338 coal plants in Germany blown up”, I’d reasonably interpret it as 4338/4338 blew up. “All 4” doesn’t imply 4 total only because 4 is an unreasonably low count for total coal plants, not because “all [number] [object]” syntax is putting in the work.

And of course, 28 is a reasonable count of total charged.

the headline is the reason why i am interested in an article. HN being US centric i expected a story about a US court, or, since the article is from the BBC, a british court. both would have been interesting. had the headline said "panama court acquits..." i'd have skipped it. so yes, i felt mislead and i appreciate the top comment for clearing that up.

Sorry but this is a crazy POV. You come to HN assuming and pushing for USA centric views, and refuse to click through and read news from other sources?

i didn't say that.

all i am suggesting is that a court in panama acquiting people charged with money laundering is not interesting to me, because that is what i would expect from there. likewise a court in europe or the US judging them guilty would not be interesting.

but the reverse would be interesting in both cases because it would be a surprise. for the US/europe i'd be interested to know what went wrong, and for panama i'd be happy to learn that things are not as bad as the reputation of the country, or that things are improving.

i don't need to read stories that confirm my expectation or bias, but i care about stories that challenge them and let me learn something. i haven't seen anything in the comments that suggested that there would be anything to learn here.

>The headline makes it sound like everybody got away with everything everywhere...

I don't know what a phrase like "all 28" means to you, but that reads exactly like 28 people in a specific case got off, to me.

The phrase “all 28” could also be interpreted as though there were only 28 people charged in conjunction with the Panama Papers, and all of them were acquitted.

Several other comments interpreted it that way, which is why I commented.

Great comments, thanks for clarifying the situation.

Quelle suprise.

> not been gathered in line with due process

Well, that looks about right to me. I don't see how you can mount a valid prosecution based on evidence derived from a giant hack.

Generally evidence gathered by the authorities may not be tainted, to discourage the police from breaking the law to gather evidence. This restriction does not usually apply to evidence collected by private citizens.

In other words, if a burglar finds the dead bodies in your cellar, that evidence is admissable.

Depends where you are. US law doesn't apply everywhere.

Also, I'd guess that even in the USA, evidence produced by a burglar can be challenged on the grounds that it isn't what it purports to be. I suspect that US chain-of-custody rules etc. are meant for broader purposes than just controlling police corruption. The police are not the only people who can manipulate evidence.

I'm not in or from the US either. It's a common rule though.

The word of a burglar alone hopefully isn't enough for a conviction anywhere, but it should be sufficient for a warrant in sane jurisdictions.

Reminds me of something someone said a while back:

> hey remember when the panama papers came out and revealed that all the rich people in the world are part of enormous criminal conspiracy to dodge taxes and hoard stolen wealth in offshore accounts and literally nothing happened

> literally nothing happened

> Daphne Anne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese writer, journalist, blogger and anti-corruption activist, who reported on political events in Malta and was known internationally for her investigation of the Panama Papers, and subsequent assassination by car bomb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia

At least something happened.

Nothing happened?

Tell that to Swedish writer Håkan Nesser who was sentenced to 1,5 years in prison because of tax evasion that was revealed through the Panama papers.

I’m not claiming everyone involved got busted, but at least for some it had real consequences.

https://www.svt.se/kultur/forfattaren-hakan-nesser-doms-till...

I've been trying to stop my nihilistic and pessimistic views, cause they don't actually help improve things, but help me cope with injustice without getting hurt. But events like this really hit me.

I don't need to be unrealistically optimistic, but it's possible that the situation can be improved a bit and maybe I can play a part in that. Well, if the cost of tax evasion increases by 1%, I can say it's a big win.

What a tiresome take. Mossack Fonseca was closed due to the leak, and Mossack and Fonseca were charged with money laundering. FIFA was investigated. A bunch of countries recovered a bunch of money due to the leak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Recovered_sums_f...

Wikipedia has articles covering the list of things that happened in each country in response to the leak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers

Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(Europe)

Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(Asia)

North America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(North_America)

South America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(South_America)

Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(Africa)

We didn't get the end of Fight Club or Mr. Robot where the global financial industry collapsed and we abolish money and we all live happily ever after, but "literally nothing happened" is just wrong.

> Mossack Fonseca was closed due to the leak, and Mossack and Fonseca were charged with money laundering.

Yes and those are literally the dismissed charges this article discusses.

if other countries want they can put them on various lists, deny them future cash flows, clients, opportunities, whatever.

and of course there have been many regulatory changes since then with regards to KYC/AML. are they enough? (are they even useful compared to how much hassle they are for average people? probably not it tax authorities don't do shit and don't audit rich people. but even that is changing.)

Yes but that’s not what the headline nor the article discuss. You’re free to misinterpret things till kingdom come, but that’s on you…

true, but this thread was about "nothing happened" ... lot of things happened.

So basically, if someone leaks evidence of wrongdoing, the perpetrators can't be prosecuted because the evidence is tainted?

That seems fucked.

This is just one trial in one country (Panama) where one judge dismissed the charges. This scheme was operated in Panama because the legal system is favorable to them. That’s why it’s called “Panama Papers”

Many other people have been successfully charged throughout the world following the Panama Papers. Laws differ greatly across jurisdictions.

Multiple people in the United States have been charged: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers_(North_America...

More court cases are pending around the world.

Don’t generalize across the world from the actions of one Panamanian court. This tax haven scheme was operated in Panama specifically because the legal system there was favorable to what they were doing.

I'm not, my comment was about that one specific court (in the article).

It's the same logic that is supposed to prevent people from being prosecuted for things found by illegal wiretapping and such.

Really though, the leaks should have prompted a quick search warrant that got around this.

There’s a world of difference between law enforcement doing illegal wiretapping and employees blowing the whistle.

Sure, but if it didn't apply here law enforcement could illegally wiretap you, leak it to the press, and then charge you. Things are different, but solutions are hard.

Only if you found a corrupt journalist who was willing to lie about their sources

Or one who accepted anonymous leaks. Or a law enforcement agent willing to lie about who they were.

Not the first time something like this has happened. In fact it is the leakers are usually prosecuted instead of the perpetrators, even if they told the truth.

For example, the leaker of the FinCEN files [0] was sentenced to prison for helping to expose the regulators and large banks allowing illicit transactions from criminals and drug cartels. [1]

[0] https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/fincen-offi...

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/fincen-fil...

Yeah this judgement makes no sense. I assumed whistleblowing with insider evidence was an accepted way (and possibly the only way) to expose these kinds of massive wrongdoings.

There is no "possibly" about it. It is the only way to expose these wrongdoings.

The system is rotten and rigged. The sooner people wake up to this reality, the better. Like any breakup, the longer you let the relationship go, the more difficult and painful it is when you end it.

It makes perfect sense. The system is working exactly as intended.

Rigged for the absurdly wealthy against everyone else on the planet.

Laws (and consequences for breaking them) are for us, not them.

Unfortunately, often the same people who are opposed to things like what you said “absurdly wealthy against everyone else”; also inadvertently support them and make them absurdly wealthy through things like the various schemes and contracts related to pandemics, climate change, bailouts, welfare/social services, healthcare, immigration, war, etc.

If people wanted to solve this problem, we would need to make all of the things that benefit the wealthy financially but cost the rest of the people immensely, directly payable through direct taxes on income and wealthy of those most responsible and able to affect those matters, i.e., the upper neo-aristocracy.

For example; all the people who benefited most from all the pollution, should now not also be able to profit from the prescribed solutions to the consequences of their actions that just happen to also make them even more absurdly wealthy.

Even more unfortunate though is that many, if not most regular people simply do not understand the abusive relationship they are in with the upper class, so they’ll rationalize and excuse and justify all day long until the cows come home when someone wants to explain to them that being beaten, lied to, and exploited by the upper class is not a sign of love.

Sounds like you and I are in violent agreement. Though I dislike that you seem to begin with halfway lumping me in with the lot you go on to describe.

I’d offer one other dark pattern in the overall dynamic. Some folks, rather than being in denial about their being on the victim end of an abusive relationship, appear to be 100% ok with it as long as they themselves get to bully and exploit others lower down in the hierarchy.

> A Panamanian court

Yeah I mean, that's not like they have a real legal system anyways, the whole purpose of the place is to stash funds.

And move boats from one ocean to another

“Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky […] were among those whose affairs came under scrutiny following the leak.”

… and then we gave him $600 Billion of our citizens’ money.

Leaked documents prove that Zelensky and his inner circle have had their own network of offshore companies. Two belonging to the president’s partners were used to buy expensive property in London.

The documents show that Zelensky and his partners in a television production company, Kvartal 95, set up a network of offshore firms dating back to at least 2012, the year the company began making regular content for TV stations owned by Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch dogged by allegations of multi-billion-dollar fraud. The offshores were also used by Zelensky associates to purchase and own three prime properties in the center of London.

The documents also show that just before he was elected, he gifted his stake in a key offshore company, the British Virgin Islands-registered Maltex Multicapital Corp., to his business partner — soon to be his top presidential aide. And in spite of giving up his shares, the documents show that an arrangement was soon made that would allow the offshore to keep paying dividends to a company that now belongs to his wife.

You can see who funded his election.

The thing about taking on the Elites, is you end up selling your soul to other Elites. There is no prosecution of the Elites. There is just a Circulation of Elites as Pareto showed us a century ago.

Elites get prosecuted when they've sufficiently pissed off or stolen from other elites

Reply on news.ycombinator.com