The Student Room Group

The Panama Papers - Biggest Leak Ever

Scroll to see replies

i was wondering how is it there are no americans on the list? no way
Original post by StrangeBanana
Millions of documents from a law firm in Panama called "Mossack Fonseca" were leaked to journalists at the German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung, exposing corruption and tax evasion on an enormous scale. Dozens of celebrities, politicians and other world figures, including many heads of state, have been implicated.

Useful Links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers
https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/index.html

This is wild.


CIA set up propaganda and media attack against Putin
Original post by HucktheForde
i was wondering how is it there are no americans on the list? no way


Because its CIA who made this up😉
that fat corrupt bastard nawaz sharif needs shooting
So three former Tory MPs, six Tory Lords and numerous Tory backers have links to this offshore tax haven firm.

How surprising...
David Camerons dad got exposed.
Original post by Youngmetro
David Camerons dad got exposed.


Are we sure its DC's dad?

It's worth noting that no-one is actually guilty of anything yet. For now it's all allegation and speculation.
Original post by Bulbasaur
...and to think people blame immigrants, foreign aid, the public sector workers and people on benefits.

NEWSFLASH: Your politicians are corrupt as :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:: "Former Tory MPs, party donors and David Cameron’s late father among those named in huge leak of documents linked to Panama law firm".

Still, the Trump lot on here will blame this on leftyeyes somehow


Pretty much nobody on the planet blamed only immigrants, foreign aid, the public sector workers and people on benefits. I think you'll find that the people who slag off those types are also slagging off bankers and politicians etc. A very Emily Thornberry-type comment from yourself. You're not above it all I'm afraid.
Original post by Pegasus2
Are we sure its DC's dad?

It's worth noting that no-one is actually guilty of anything yet. For now it's all allegation and speculation.


http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas - According to this, yh

The evidence seems fairly detailed and comprehensive, but yeah, it's still allegations.
Original post by Pegasus2


It's worth noting that no-one is actually guilty of anything yet. For now it's all allegation and speculation.


As far as I can tell, the only allegations made are:

1 The law firm knew money was from Brinks Mat and still continued to act; and

2 A guy who is a pal of the Russian President can't possibly be as rich as all this from being Putin's mate, and so the money must be Putin's.
Original post by Youngmetro
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas - According to this, yh

The evidence seems fairly detailed and comprehensive, but yeah, it's still allegations.


But what is being alleged?
Original post by nulli tertius
But what is being alleged?


Camerons dad had an investment fund called Blairmore. He managed the funds abroad and didnt pay any UK tax. Basically tax evasion/ avoidance, not sure which tho
Original post by Youngmetro
Camerons dad had an investment fund called Blairmore. He managed the funds abroad and didnt pay any UK tax. Basically tax evasion/ avoidance, not sure which tho


Cameron's Dad was a stockbroker. That's what they do; manage other people's money.

Why shouldn't he call it Blairmore? it seems to be the name of a family property.

I agree he managed the funds abroad; indeed seems to have gone to considerable trouble to ensure that board meetings took place in foreign countries.

I am sure he did pay UK tax on the fees he earned. It wasn't him avoiding tax; it was his clients.

What is tax avoidance other than arranging your affairs so that you don't fall within the scope of a tax. You avoid tax every time you buy a paperback rather than a Kindle book; every time you buy a cake rather than a biscuit and every time you decide to stay in and not go out on the town.
Original post by nulli tertius
Cameron's Dad was a stockbroker. That's what they do; manage other people's money.

Why shouldn't he call it Blairmore? it seems to be the name of a family property.

I agree he managed the funds abroad; indeed seems to have gone to considerable trouble to ensure that board meetings took place in foreign countries.

I am sure he did pay UK tax on the fees he earned. It wasn't him avoiding tax; it was his clients.

What is tax avoidance other than arranging your affairs so that you don't fall within the scope of a tax. You avoid tax every time you buy a paperback rather than a Kindle book; every time you buy a cake rather than a biscuit and every time you decide to stay in and not go out on the town.


Yes, this was all said in the article. It is apparent that a lot of the money managed was from wealthy people but it would be hardly surprising and very likely that some of the money was also from Cameron's pockets.

In this case, Cameron's father profited from this investment fund with the specific intention of avoiding tax. The profits he made from what was a UK run business based in the Bahamas did not get any UK tax charged on it. It's perfectly legal but it is unethical. It's just like this whole Google tax scandal.
Original post by Youngmetro
Yes, this was all said in the article. It is apparent that a lot of the money managed was from wealthy people but it would be hardly surprising and very likely that some of the money was also from Cameron's pockets.


Possibly, possibly not, but they aren't accusing him of personally investing.

In this case, Cameron's father profited from this investment fund with the specific intention of avoiding tax.


His intention was to make money, either for himself or others, from the investments made. If no money was made there would have been nothing to tax. Your intention when you choose not to go out pubbing and clubbing is to save money or watch the footie or whatever but you do it in the full knowledge and with the intention that Osborne will be deprived of the VAT and alcohol duties that would otherwise be chargeable on the drinks you failed to buy.

The profits he made from what was a UK run business based in the Bahamas did not get any UK tax charged on it. It's perfectly legal but it is unethical. It's just like this whole Google tax scandal.


But it wasn't a UK run business. A company is run by its management, not its advisers and its management made damn sure they only transacted any business abroad.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Possibly, possibly not but they aren't accusing him of personally investing.

In this case, Cameron's father profited from this investment fund with the specific intention of avoiding tax.


His intention was to make money, either for himself or others, from the investments made. If no money was made there would have been nothing to tax. Your intention when you choose not to go out pubbing and clubbing is to save money or watch the footie or whatever but you do it in the full knowledge and with the intention that Osborne will be deprived of the VAT and alcohol duties that would otherwise be chargeable on the drinks you failed to buy.



But it wasn't a UK run business. A company is run by its management, not its advisers and its management made damn sure they only transacted any business abroad.
1) He wanted to make money by specifically avoiding tax for other wealthy people so that all parties in the transaction benefited. This is when it becomes questionable.

2) It wasn't UK, but his clients were from the UK. And in 2012, he moved it from Panama to Ireland, so it comes under EU laws.
Original post by Youngmetro

1) He wanted to make money by specifically avoiding tax for other wealthy people so that all parties in the transaction benefited. This is when it becomes questionable.


Why is that questionable? What is wrong with doing that. Why should his clients pay more tax than is legally due and why shouldn't he be rewarded for helping them to achieve that?

It wasn't UK, but his clients were from the UK.


If you, in Britain, invest in Ford or Daimler Benz or Toyota, when those businesses may profits you are not taxed on them in the UK. Those companies pay their taxes in the US or Germany or Japan. If they distribute their profits to you in the form of dividends, it is then that you pay tax on those dividends in the UK. Rather than invest in Ford, these people invested in Blairmore a Panamanian company based in the Bahamas. One assumes they paid whatever taxes were due in those countries (of course one of the key things about tax havens is that they do levy taxes-otherwise there would be nothing in it for the country concerned) and one hopes (it wouldn't say assumes) that when funds were remitted back to the UK, UK taxes were paid.
Original post by nulli tertius
Why is that questionable? What is wrong with doing that. Why should his clients pay more tax than is legally due and why shouldn't he be rewarded for helping them to achieve that?



If you, in Britain, invest in Ford or Daimler Benz or Toyota, when those businesses may profits you are not taxed on them in the UK. Those companies pay their taxes in the US or Germany or Japan. If they distribute their profits to you in the form of dividends, it is then that you pay tax on those dividends in the UK. Rather than invest in Ford, these people invested in Blairmore a Panamanian company based in the Bahamas. One assumes they paid whatever taxes were due in those countries (of course one of the key things about tax havens is that they do levy taxes-otherwise there would be nothing in it for the country concerned) and one hopes (it wouldn't say assumes) that when funds were remitted back to the UK, UK taxes were paid.


1) It's unethical. I'm not gonna have an argument about that, it is pretty obvious tax avoidance is unethical. It's legal for a 70 year old man to shag a 16 year old, doesnt mean its not questionable or unethical.

2) All of what you said is irrelevant, all of this is just a way of making money by investing in financial assets. Point is, the fund used UK clients money, invested in bearer shares for the specific intent of avoiding tax. This money was made in the UK, invested as bearer shares and managed in the Panamas.

I doubt the funds were subject to UK tax once remitted. The whole point of the investment fund was for the clients to avoid taxes. If they weren't trying to, why did they go through the hassle of investing in a non UK based company?
Original post by Farm_Ecology
Has anything actually been revealed yet?

Is this even worth anything? We know the rich and powerful avoid tax, we just dont have effective means to prevent them from doing so. Is knowing where they have really as groundbreaking as everyone is making out?


Have you been reading anything about it?

Putin's inner circle has been implicated in massive money laundering. Top Chinese politicians have been shown to be utterly hypocritical in stuffing funds in tax havens. Dozens of individuals and companies have been shown to be wilfully circumventing US sanctions.

This isn't a matter of the same old vague speculation: the point is that specific people and organisations have been named and shamed by this leak, including some of the most powerful people on the planet.
Original post by TurboCretin
Have you been reading anything about it?

Putin's inner circle has been implicated in massive money laundering. Top Chinese politicians have been shown to be utterly hypocritical in stuffing funds in tax havens. Dozens of individuals and companies have been shown to be wilfully circumventing US sanctions.

This isn't a matter of the same old vague speculation: the point is that specific people and organisations have been named and shamed by this leak, including some of the most powerful people on the planet.


Can any of this information be used to prosecute?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you