Panama Papers

From a BSA/AML perspective, the "Panama Papers" are absolutely fascinating. Wonder what this latest revelation is going to do on the whole "Beneficial Owner" concept. Very interesting to read some of these articles and just how deep down the rabbit hole a lot of this goes.

At the very least, it might be worth it to run some of these names against counter-parties in wires and other transactions.

At the very least, you should be able to add to your PEP database from all the information that has been leaked.

Add this to the "Anonymous, Inc" story from 60 Minutes and public comprehension of shell companies and money laundering went up incredibly almost overnight.

The ripple effect of the Panama Papers gives me a chill.

I hear Disney used as an example of legitimate shell companies in one of the articles. Disney bought land for their parks through shell companies in order to keep the land prices from jumping up for them.

The Disney story is true - they didn't want anyone to know who was buying the land - because of price increases and also because of proprietary secrets - didn't want anyone to know of expansion.

We talked at Top Gun about the changing nature of financial crime and spotlighted kleptocracy, among other things. It appears the world may be even more full of corrupt officials than one could imagine.

Welcome to BOL Mary! Congratulations on your 1st post!

Some of the names here are certainly not surprises. I wasn't shocked to find Comrade Putin mentioned. But Gunnlaugsson, the (former, as of today) prime minister of Iceland?

My crystal ball forecasts a renewed interest in EDD for PEPs in BSA/AML examinations over the next year or so.

I had not noticed that all my previous posts went "Poof! Gone!" Some days I really hate technology.

Back to the Panama Papers. I particularly like this illustrated explanation:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ap...to-a-5-year-old

I need the person who wrote this article to come and explain CIP to our staff......

What I a great article! I think I'm going to use this at our next BSA Board training.

I filed it away too. It's a great training piece.

Are you sure the age comprehension level is not to high? smile

I'm hoping I will get a chuckle and not questions:)

Who has now resigned? I was shocked as well.

Another interesting article from the Guardian. I have now seen a number of articles on the US being targeted as one of the worst offenders. The US government and the States are going to come under increased pressure to do something that is outside of any beneficial ownership rules FinCEN could ever impose on financial institutions.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-us-tax-havens-delaware

Negative reports from FATF on a country's AML/CFT controls can have adverse affects on trade. Ten years ago, when FATF last did a "mutual evaluation" of the U.S., we got adverse comments on our transparency of beneficial ownership of business entities and of trusts. At that time, our government may have taken the cavalier attitude that our economic influence would offset the negative evaluation. We're due for the next mutual evaluation this year, and the global economy has certainly changed in the intervening ten years. Government may be under more pressure to take action to improve things.

" Government may be under more pressure to take action to improve things."

Means: Force banks to do the job that the government is unable and unwilling to do because it is full of inept individuals.

And it starts...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-...iminals-n553396

How long before examiners are asking banks if they are searching their customer base with the names in these documents?

We should be so proud:

* the law firm is in Panama,
* the geographic footprint for most of the individuals secreting assets is in Europe, Asia and South America

Yet, they came to the U.S. to set up more than 1,100 corporations, most of them in Nevada.

My favorite quote from the RIA that purports to provide the cost justification for the U.S. beneficial ownership regulation:

It would further enable the United States to demonstrate progress at the FATF, and at other international bodies, and bilaterally to encourage other jurisdictions to comply with the FATF standards and avoid accusations of hypocrisy due to its own lack of compliance.

How can we avoid accusations of hypocrisy? We are hypocrites. Nothing constitutes a higher level of proof than our proposed beneficial ownership regulation. It's a transparent sham that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I have not had a chance to actually read through the materials yet. I was curious as to what banks (US or non US) are mentioned in the documents?

All of the folks that provide OFAC and 314(a) screening lists - do they have their techno-wizards combing through the Panama Papers to compile names?

At the very least - there is a business opportunity.

Not all transactions in the Panama Papers were illegal or involved the laundering of money. Such an endeavor at this point in time would be worthless.

That is unless you feel like you might be caught "swimming without shorts on when the tide goes out" and want to do some early damage control

FinCEN and the US Government should get with the program. Part of Cameron's speech to Parliament today:

He said most of Britain's overseas territories, including the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, and Crown Dependencies, like Jersey, would now provide British law enforcement and tax agencies full access to information on beneficial ownership of companies to offer greater transparency.

since his late father is listed he may not be the appropriate person to throw stones.

Why can't we get it together like the other countries can. That's what I don't get. I know American value their privacy but we seem to have issues making a decision.

Like I said before. Not all transactions in the Panama Papers were illegal or involved the laundering of money. Let's remember our American principles - innocent until proven guilty.

While it may not be illegal it certainly is not transparent

One reason we "can't get it together" is our rather unique federal system that reserves to the states those things the Constitution doesn't give the central government to control. The states control property ownership and the formation of corporations -- "creatures of the state." The federal government can't start imposing a whole bunch of restrictions and requirements on the states' control of corporations, LLCs, etc., without stirring up a constitutional crisis over states' rights. And that's one, IMHO, that a full SCOTUS would rule on in favor of the states. So Congress has to "man up" and find another way to get this done.

As Ken has suggested more than once, Congress could mandate that the IRS require the filing of beneficial ownership information with every annual corporate tax return (or the equivalent), and direct that the IRS make that ownership info available to law enforcement, and take the banks out of the middle on this fiasco.

The White House budgets for 2015, 2016, & 2017 contained a provision under which the IRS would require an EIN for all entities, foreign and domestic, and mandate the disclosure of a beneficial owner on the SS-4. Law enforcement would have access to that information. My understanding is that Senator Levin, now retired, proposed such a bill.

There is a way around the states' intransigence. However, as is the case with many other things, we lack the political will to do it.

It is also more lucrative to have the banks do this unattainable task.

2 years ago

White House Blog

https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/sec-fines-rbs-breaking-beneficial-ownership-rules

Thank you for the link to the White House Blog. I had to dig it out from the budget itself, the original Augean Stables.