Possibly very boring, but just in case there’s something interesting in there:
If those are the biggest names in there… oh well.
So, a couple items:
- Are they naming these things with “Pa–” words for the alliteration with “papers”? [almost definitely]
- How did they get these papers?
- Banks/financial firms are probably wondering how to protect their own clients. They could get sued for leaks like this.
- If you’re a financial firm, and your papers didn’t end up in there, do you crow to clients about it?
The shocking news here would have been that political leaders and rulers of countries don’t get access to vast sums of money / don’t deploy those vast sums of money for their own personal enrichment.
The real question: what is anyone going to do about it? The answer will be the same as always: not a goddamn thing, because people want to be able to get into that position so they can enrich themselves too.
Definitely. Reading the WaPo article, the firm hacked in the Panama Papers went out of business. Others firms certainly trumpeted their “better security”. At least one got rid of digital records and kept everything on paper.
Yeah, those names aren’t critical in US politics. I expect people at home care.
Google “Pandora Papers Dakota” and you’ll find that a couple US states are tying to become destinations for people who want to hide money.
Good for them. It’s like captive domiciles. The more, the merrier!
Pandora sounds a lot more childish than Panama
Panama was because that was where the law firm that had the leak had an office that did nearly all the hidden work.
This leak was across multiple firms and across multiple jurisdictions. And they are hoping this would be wide enough to screw with tons of powerful people in major countries.
well, no names of interest in the U.S., but I guess some people in the UK are riled up
Yep. I think that the natural person owners of all corporations and partnerships and trusts should be a matter of public record.
In the UK, companies can avoid this by saying they are owned by non-UK companies that don’t have to disclose their owners. I have no problem putting teeth into the law and saying you can’t transfer money in any way into or out of the UK company until you can identify the foreign owners.
My gut feel is that the US is worse. Every state sets its own laws so we can get a race to the bottom. See: South Dakota.
It is a bad land indeed. Filled with dead wood.