Two amazing stories have emerged out of the UK over the past few days for members of the Task Force. Our members in the United Kingdom are collecting meaningful and important recognition for their work on global tax dodging issues.
Task Force Assistant Communications Director Nick Mathiason was nominated by the Press Gazette for the Business Journalist of the Year British Journalism Award, for his work as part of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The Press Gazette editor, Dominic Ponsford, said:
“The genesis for these awards was the hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry. If ever an industry needs some positive PR the journalism industry does.
“We knew there was far more important public interest journalism going on in the UK than our much-maligned colleagues get credit for and, like many others, Press Gazette has noted that Lord Justice Leveson saw mainly a one-sided and negative picture during his inquiry.
“The finalists for the first British Journalism awards prove comprehensively that there are two sides to this story.”
We not only congratulate Nick for becoming a finalist, but also will be rooting for him to come out on top and receive the award on December 4th. You can read more about the awards here.
John Christensen and Nicholas Shaxson of Tax Justice Network, were listed as two of the fifty most influential individuals and organizations in the world on global tax issues by International Tax Review. John was included for his work on country-by-country reporting, tax havens, tax avoidance, and automatic exchange of tax information. Nicholas earned his spot on the list through his landmark book Treasure Islands, as well as his reporting on U.S. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s involvement with tax havens in Vanity Fair.
This post was originally written for The Hill’s Congress Blog.
Did you know that it can take more information to obtain a driver’s license than to start your very own anonymous shell company with which you can use and abuse the U.S. financial system? In a matter of minutes, and with minimal documentation, you can own a company without disclosing that you are, in fact, the owner. These opaque entities are a favorite tool of terrorists, drug traffickers, arms dealers, corrupt government leaders, tax evaders and other criminals to launder money into the U.S.
Putting an end to the “anonymous” in “shell company” would increase our national security, lower the amount of money lost to tax evasion, and thwart the corruption that enables leaders to live extravagant lives to the detriment of their citizens.
Fortunately, Congress already has the tools to take this necessary action. Now it must act.
A bipartisan Senate bill, the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, and a companion House bill, would help end the secrecy surrounding shell companies. The legislation would require companies to disclose information about the real people who own or control them. Knowing the “beneficial owners” of such entities would better enable law enforcement to pursue terrorist cells, financial crime, and drug cartels.
In September at the turn of this century, the leaders of the world convened at the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations. The Assembly was the culmination of nearly a decade of United Nations summits and conferences to address development and poverty. It was in 2000, however, that the world’s leaders adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, a commitment to a noble new partnership to drastically reduce poverty worldwide. All 193 member states of the United Nations and 23 organizations have agreed to achieve a set of eight goals by 2015. They are:
By and large, developed countries and international organizations provide the policy advice, technical assistance, and financial support to achieve these goals. In 2005, members of the G8 also provided enough funds to forgive an additional $55 billion debt owed by Highly Indebted Poor Countries.
Cross-posted from Transparency International’s Space for Transparency blog.
Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister of Italy was sentenced on 26 October to 4 years in prison for fraud but because of Italy’s laws limiting the length of trials, he is unlikely to serve any time.
Headlines around the world read “Berlusconi gets four year jail sentence.” But Berlusconi is unlikely to see the inside of a cell following his conviction for fraud, not because an appeal will overturn the case but because the case will be closed under Italy’s short statute of limitation laws.
How trial limits vary across Europe. Prosecutions for abuse of public function and bribery in Italy must end 7.5 years after the crime last happened. For money laundering, cases can last 15 years. Click the picture for the full report (p. 26).
Under Italian law Berlusconi can appeal to two more courts, a process that is likely to take several years, and as the Financial Times is already reporting, Italy’s strict limits on the length of trials – the “statute of limitations” – means the charges will very probably evaporate at the end of 2013 or early 2014.
If the courts are serious about their convictions, they need to find a way to make the punishments stick. Italy has one of the least effective statutes of limitations in Europe. Portuguese prosecutors get three times as long to finish a bribery case (22.5 years) than their Italian colleagues (7.5 years). The Council of Europe have long called for reform.
Global Financial Integrity’s new report, Illicit Financial Flows from China and the Role of Trade Misinvoicing, was released yesterday. It found that China lost $3.79 trillion–an astonishingly high number–between 2000 and 2011 to illicit financial flows. In just 2011, China lost almost $600 billion. These outflows are the proceeds of crime, corruption, and tax evasion, and threaten Chinese social stability. The report first debuted exclusively in this week’s issue of The Economist.
The report also analyzed trade mispricing between the United States and China, finding that as much as $72 billion flows out of China to the United States every year.
In the words of GFI Lead Economist Dev Kar, ““The Chinese economy is a ticking time bomb. The social, political, and economic order is not sustainable in the long-run given such massive illicit outflows.”
Raymond Baker, Director of Global Financial Integrity and the Task Force, wrote about the problem that illicit financial flows poses for China, and how it could affect the rest of the world in the Huffington Post,
China has seen massive, world-changing, economic growth over the past three decades. However, corruption is undermining much of this growth. The infrastructure that China is building right now should drive growth, and therefore raise living standards for the Chinese people for a century to come. However, many of the brand new bridges, roads, and modern buildings in China have been plagued by shoddy quality and massive amounts of corruption. Our research suggests that much of this money is flowing out of China.
I spent most of my professional life as an entrepreneur in Nigeria, and lived there for 15 years. Despite massive oil wealth and a vibrant, young population, 45% of the population lives below the poverty line. Per-capita GDP has barely risen since I first set foot there in the 1960s. I know far too many people living worse off today than they did decades ago. This is not because the Nigerian economy lacks promise–it has huge oil exports, and the country is filled with good, ambitious, entrepreneurial people–but because crime, corruption, and tax evasion have torn the country apart.
When China is growing at close to 10% every year, China’s median citizen sees their life improving despite endemic corruption and illicit outflows. However, there are serious questions for the political and social stability of China’s economy if growth slows. Will the median citizen continue to tolerate obvious and tragic corruption on the scale that we are seeing when more modest growth is not improving their living standards? When we say that illicit flows drive inequality, it is because money moved illegally out of the economy hurts your average person. That money can’t be spent on schools, infrastructure or basic services. To make matters worse, our prior research finds that illicit flows drive underground economies, resulting in more organized crime, smuggling, and other factors that undermine the Chinese economy.
Transparency International today launched Keeping REDD+ clean – a step-by-step guide to guarding REDD+ against corruption, before it sets in.
Many of the world’s most densely forested countries have a poor track record for corruption. Politicians have been known to accept bribes – sometimes huge – to grant companies access to forest zones that should be protected. Meanwhile, some local communities have been forcefully removed from their homes in order to clear the way for forest exploitation, or have been coerced into selling their land for a fraction of its value.
REDD+ will inherit many of the corruption risks that have long beset the forestry sector, but it also brings with it new ones. Carbon is intangible, and so difficult to quantify. This opens the door to mistakes or manipulation – both of data and of people. Given the remoteness of REDD+ sites there may be no easy way of knowing whether a project on the voluntary carbon market is authentic or bogus. And forest communities may be marginalised from decision-making and profits.
At this critical stage in policy development Keeping REDD+ clean walks users through how to identify risks in REDD+ countries and find solutions. The book is already being used by our national chapters in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam.
You can read more about the report here.
In late 1975 a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Lockheed Corporation revealed that the aircraft manufacturer had paid at least $22 million in bribes to foreign government officials and political organizations. At the time, this was not illegal and it resulted in a scandal, investigation, and a revelation that hundreds of other businesses were routinely involved in this practice. In response to the Lockheed scandal, Congress enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) in an effort to “bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.” The FCPA makes it unlawful for persons and entities to “make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.”
Last year some members of Congress, including Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and the Chamber of Commerce brandished a crusade against the FCPA, hoping to weaken it with amendments. Rep. Sensenbrenner spent a great deal of valuable Judiciary Committee time last fall convincing other Congressmen to join him, rather than encouraging a thoughtful debate on the issue.
In a not-unrelated move, early last November, the Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, said in remarks at a national FCPA conference that his division expects to “release detailed new guidance on the act’s criminal and civil enforcement provisions,” in what he hoped would be “a useful and transparent aid.” Breuer didn’t promise a timeline, but he did mention the guidance would arrive sometime “in 2012.”
The United States is about to decide on who will be the most powerful person in the world for the next four years. The two candidates had set lines and issues that they wanted to talk about. These are issues that likely will play a role in determining who wins the election. I can understand that they will act this way as candidates running in a competitive race. But what I can’t understand is how a veteran reporter and moderator like Bob Schieffer can forget about most of the world.
In 90 minutes, the conversation barely strayed away from talking about U.S. national security in the MENA region. A few quick asides mentions China-related policy and some U.S. domestic policy, but that’s it. The closest thing to talking about other important issues that came up were brief mentions of continents. The phrase “Europe and Africa” was spoke once. Governor Romney brought up “Latin America” very briefly. But then the conversation shifted back to MENA national security.
Bob Schieffer should have asked the candidates questions about a range of important issues. We have debates for a number of reasons other than deciding a competitive election, and chief among them is so that we can hold candidates accountable for their actions in office. When the next President takes office, he is going to act on these issues. They need to be on record talking about them.
Obviously, timing is an issue. The debate doesn’t go on forever. But here are three questions that Bob Schieffer should have asked.
What should the United States do to help combat global poverty?
Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration has been quite innovative in some ways on this front. Specifically, their push for domestic resource mobilization in developing countries. Secretary Clinton has supported combating illicit financial flows through extractive industries transparency, helping developing countries collect tax revenue, and fighting corruption.
In October’s Taxcast episode: Helsinki declares itself a tax haven-free zone, Starbucks joins the tax avoidance Roll of Dishonour and we follow the money: asset recovery, dictators and the selling of secrecy. You can view more Taxcast episodes here.
Cross-posted from Transparency International’s Space for Transparency blog. The original version of this article was written last week. Since then, South Korea was chosen to host the planned US$100 billion per year Green Climate Fund.
Urgency and precaution are not easily reconcilable. The Green Climate Fund – which met last week for the second time – will have to negotiate that balance. As climate negotiations chug along laboriously, this global fund will ensure that much-needed investment is not stalled as a result. By 2020 it could be holding the purse strings for up to US$100 billion in climate money every year.
But not before it is decided how the fund will operate. Events in the lead-up to last week’s meeting in Songdo, South Korea signal an inauspicious start to that process.
Currently the green fund consists solely of its executive board, inaugurated last month. An illustrious group of Finance Ministers, Environment Ministers, diplomats and bankers, board members have been tasked with crafting their fund from scratch – people, policies and systems to allocate and monitor spending. Until the fund becomes operational in 2014, board members will be quite literally writing their own rules.
It is hard to overstate the responsibility entailed. We are entrusting this global fund with spending scarce public resources as efficiently as they can, and leveraging the private capital required to meet the task of climate action. Ultimately these decisions will impact the success of efforts to reduce carbon emissions, raise us above ground level, shield us from storms and tidal surges, and channel water through drought.
According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI), in 2009, importers and exporters sent $569 billion out of developing countries through trade mispricing. Trade mispricing, in case you’re not already aware, is a process by which individuals can transfer money abroad without detection. By over-invoicing imports and under-invoicing exports, individuals can evade taxes and avert capital controls through routine trade.
Here’s how it works: Suppose a Mexican furniture manufacturer, who wants to send money abroad illegally, imports $100 worth of timber from the United States. Instead of paying $100, the furniture company reports and pays $200. The company’s U.S. trading partner takes $100 for the furniture, reports the $100 on its own invoice, and shifts the extra $100 to a secret Delaware bank account (and maybe keeps an extra few dollars as a transaction fee). Now the furniture company has shifted the $100 to the United States without Mexico’s knowledge.
But the $100 discrepancy is also reflected in the difference between what the United States says it exported to Mexico and what Mexico reports it imported from the United States. So GFI calculates these figures by comparing world trade data. Trade data is bilateral, which means that we can compare what County A says it exported to the world against what the world says it imported from Country A. Of course, these statistics are by no means perfect so some of the observed differences are just the result of statistical errors. But some of the difference is not statistical noise; it’s illicit transfers of wealth. And that’s what GFI tries to measure.
Event: Global Corruption: Money, Power and Ethics in the Modern World
A Panel Discussion on Corruption, Development and Democracy
Monday, October 29th, 2012, 10:00am – 11:30am
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Laurence Cockcroft, author
Michael Hershman, President & CEO of The Fairfax Group, former federal fraud and financial crime investigator
Claudia Dumas, President & CEO of Transparency International USA
Raymond Baker, Director of Global Financial Integrity
Send RSVPs to Patrick Benson at firstname.lastname@example.org
Corruption is a key factor in sustaining appallingly high levels of poverty in many developing countries, particularly in relation to the provision of basic services such as education and health. It is also a major reason why increases in the growth rate in Africa and South Asia have failed to benefit large segments of the population. Corruption drives the over-exploitation of natural resources, capturing their value for a small elite – whether timber from Indonesia or coltan from the Congo. In the developed world, corrupt party funding undermines political systems and lays policy open to heavy financial lobbying.
September 16, 2014·
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) new recommendations to fight multinational corporate tax avoidance look robust from ...
September 8, 2014·
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil / WASHINGTON, DC – More than US$400 billion flowed illegally out of Brazil between 1960 and 2012— draining domestic ...
August 20, 2014·
WASHINGTON, DC – As New York regulators announced that British bank Standard Chartered ...