BRISBANE—With the release of the Brisbane communiqué, G20 leaders have acknowledged the cracks in our financial system, yet they haven’t acted on some common sense steps to bolster the fight against illicit financial flows.
“It’s good that G20 leaders have been discussing the ravaging effects tax evasion, avoidance and money laundering have on our economies, but they seem to discuss the problem every year. There is a strong and growing consensus across experts, business leaders, and even the accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers on some common sense financial transparency measures,” said Porter McConnell, Manager of the Financial Transparency Coalition. “Unfortunately, G20 leaders left a number of key actions on the table.”
It’s a vital step that G20 leaders have recognized the importance of collecting information on the beneficial owners of companies. But the fact that the word ‘public’ is still missing from both beneficial ownership registers and country by country reporting standards shows that G20 leaders aren’t fully committed to finding the strongest solutions.
BRISBANE—While G20 leaders are poised to address many of the vehicles that are integral to allowing almost one trillion dollars to flow out of developing countries each year, political pressures should not force talks to backtrack.
“The fact that so many of the world’s leaders are in one place is a rare opportunity to get things done,” said Porter McConnell, Manager of the Financial Transparency Coalition. “The summit should not be seen as a rubber stamping process; heads of state should use their 48 hours in Brisbane wisely to reach consensus on some common sense measures before them to curb illicit financial flows.”
The Luxembourg Leaks investigation demonstrated that tax dodging and profit shifting aren’t just a problem for the tax havens that enable them; the affects are felt in countries all over the world.
Last week, 25 renowned leaders on issues of transparency and equality drafted an open letter to the leaders of the G20 to address anonymous companies at this week’s summit in Brisbane. Alvin Mosioma, Chair of the Financial Transparency Coalition, signed the letter along with the heads of six organizations that are members of the FTC. […]
WASHINGTON D.C. — Newly leaked documents detailed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists describe worrying tax arrangements negotiated between Luxembourg and more than 340 multinational companies. The details of the agreements offer a first hand look at the methods use by corporations to shift profits around the world with ease. “While G20 leaders proclaim that […]
In a new report released this week titled Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing the World’s Largest Companies anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI) analyzes the disclosure practices of the world’s largest publicly listed companies. This report is part of a series of studies aimed at evaluating the corporate world’s transparency and accountability practices. In this report, TI looks at 124 corporations and scores them on transparency according to three dimensions: reporting on anti-corruption programs, organizational transparency, and country-by-country reporting.
TI’s research finds that many companies are fairly transparent regarding their anti-corruption programs, but much less so regarding their organizational structures and country-by-country activities.
Despite new legislation dictating enhanced disclosure requirements for companies, much of the elite corporate world remains cloaked by insufficient reporting standards. In many instances, it is difficult for stakeholders and the public to hold companies accountable without open access to information about where they are operating and in what capacity. Most large companies have significant overseas operations but publish very little information about what they do abroad making them increasingly susceptible to corruption.
As the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals looms, policy makers worldwide have begun discussing a post-2015 development process to formalize new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While targets have been discussed, creating a comprehensive financing framework remains essential to the process.
The European Commission has launched a series of investigations into the tax structures of companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, for fear that they are siphoning off tax revenue from Europe.
Far less attention has been paid to the role of institutions like the EU-backed European Investment Bank (EIB) in financing this offshore trade, particularly when it comes to developing countries.
Could this change?
A multitude of officials are heralding a new cross-border tax information exchange crafted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as the end of tax evasion as we know it. Unfortunately, the truth may be a bit more ambiguous.
Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany’s finance head, stated unequivocally that “banking secrecy in its old form has had its day.” Others, from George Osborne of the United Kingdom to Michel Sapinof France echoed similar praises.
While the reforms, which were discussed at a Berlin conference this week, are a big step in the direction of real financial transparency, the Tax Justice Network, a member of the FTC, has released a new report detailing their concerns with the plan, and why it’s vital that we continue to push for stronger and more inclusive measures.
WASHINGTON, DC – While noting significant progress today in the global effort to curb tax evasion, Global Financial Integrity (GFI) expressed concerns that the OECD/G20 movement toward automatic exchange of financial information was excluding the world’s poorest countries from reaping any benefits while failing to deal with the issue of illicit financial flows in comprehensive manor.
89 countries committed Wednesday to implement automatic exchange of financial information between jurisdictions by the end of 2017 or 2018 at the annual meeting of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes in Berlin.
The G8 and World Bank argue that the recent huge wave of private sector investment in agriculture increases innovation, jobs and food output.
But is this correct?
Forensic new research from influential campaign group, GRAIN suggests the opposite is true.
GRAIN’s report, Feeding the 1 percent, produces evidence which indicates the avalanche of investment after the 2008 global food crisis is predatory and that investors have “little or no background in agriculture”.
Starting tomorrow a group of government officials and experts belonging to the world’s leading anti-money laundering organisation – the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – will be meeting in Paris. On the agenda is the adoption of a document on an issue that has major implications for the fight against crime, corruption and tax evasion around the world.
It’s a shame nobody outside of this small circle of experts from governments and international organisations has had a chance to see the document before it comes out.
According to the FATF website, at its upcoming plenary meeting the organisation will adopt guidance on beneficial ownership and company transparency.
Beneficial ownership is the term used to describe who actually benefits from the assets and profits of a company. At the moment many countries allow the formation of shell companies with proxy directors which obscure the real (beneficial) owner. When people are allowed to hide their identity behind a shell company in this way, there is a risk of this advantage being used to hide illicit money.
The EU Savings Tax Directive (EUSTD) has been the EU’s flagship transparency initiative since its introduction in 2003, and we have written about it on many occasions. It complements another EU transparency scheme called the Directive on Administrative Co-operation, which was beefed up this week, as the Wall St. Journal reported:
“European Union finance ministers agreed Tuesday on a far-reaching crackdown on tax evasion that will bring the bloc’s standards on par with global rules by 2017, although Austria is getting an extra year to build up a data-exchange system with its banks.”
The DAC currently covers only EU Member states, while the EUSTD is extended by agreement to cover also a range of third countries in the EU’s orbit, including Switzerland and a bunch of British (and Dutch) tax havens. Both are systems ofautomatic information exchange (AIE), the new global financial transparency standard which TJN has been fighting for for years but only came into vogue in the past couple of years. The DAC was being beefed up to accommodate the new global Common Reporting Standards (CRS) led by the OECD. The CRS is another AIE system, which we have described as a vast improvement on a bad situation – but it still has various holes.