The Panama Papers thread

[Unhappy1]

Privacy only applies to Wikileaks. Not the rest of us.

Yup and the same type of people who will moan bitterly about the likes of NSA.

 

[schumi]

Urgent probe of Zimplats after Panama Papers leak

Harare - Impala Platinum and government officials in Zimbabwe will probe the alleged involvement of the company's Zimplats unit after leaked papers showed it used an offshore company to pay salaries of management in Zimbabwe.

Fin24 reported on Monday that Zimplats had been implicated in the Panama Papers. The leaked documents from a law firm in Panama showed that Zimplats engaged an offshore company, HR Consultancy, to pay management in Zimbabwe.

Johan Theron, Implats spokesperson, told*Voice of America late on Tuesday that the company would institute a probe into this. Implats had earlier said in a statement that Zimplats had not engaged HR Consultancy.

The Panama law firm, Mossack Fonseca, is accused of helping companies, celebrities, businessmen and politicians launder money through illicit financial flows, shell companies, offshore accounts and busting sanctions in the leaked documents.

Implats had “prioritised transparency in all our dealings and gone out of our way to transact fairly, openly and to transact and pay taxes in the countries in which we operate as far as possible,” Theron was quoted saying.

The world's second largest miner of the precious metal said it will "initiate an urgent full investigation into the purported Zimplats links with the Zimbabwe authorities,” said Theron.

The leak reveals that HR Consultancy received funds to pay managers at the company, but did not name the recipients.

“We receive the funds to cover the total salaries from Zimplats and pay the managers accordingly,” correspondence leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reveals.

A government official told Fin24 that the issue would be taken up by the central bank and the tax authority.

“Foreign Exchange regulations may have been violated by both the companies and the individuals and the central bank will take this up. Foreign currency externalisation has become a major worry and tax authorities will be instructed to look into this in detail,” said the Zimbabwe official, declining to be named.

In South Africa, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan said individuals and corporate organisations implicated in the Panama Papers leak would be probed by the Reserve Bank, the South Africa Revenue Service and other authorities in the country.

Fin24
Link: http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Mining/urgent-probe-for-zimplats-after-panama-papers-leak-20160406

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

So what Zerohedge and wiki leaks are saying is that despite the fact that there are undoubtedly innocent people involved in all this, they still deserve to have all their private information out in the public. I find that especially funny coming from someone who works behind the pseudonym of Tyler Durden.

Pretty sure all they're saying is we can't trust anyone with an agenda to determine which "innocent" people deserve to be protected, the only way around it is full disclosure.

They are 100% correct in that sense, without full disclosure we'll never know who has been protected and we'll never know whether or not they are innocent.

 

[Xarog]

Yup and the same type of people who will moan bitterly about the likes of NSA.

Lol.

How did it go again, Unhappy? Bias is fine so long as it's disclosed, right?

http://www.zerohedge.com/node/13972

In the last many years, it has become fashionable in journalistic circles, as one comes to the end of a piece, to make a substantial to-do of disclosing a long slew of:

Holdings in various marketable securities
Holdings in various unmarketable securities
Financial interests in various entities
Non-financial interests in various entities
Loan arrangements with various entities
Loan arrangements with various employees or executives of various entities
Financial relationships with various employees or executives of various entities
Financial relationships with various entities
Sexual relationships with various employees or executives of various entities
Sexual relationships with relations of various employees or executives of various entities
Sexual relationships with various entities, and;
Sexual relationships with affiliates of various entities

...in order to avoid being guilty of a conflict of interest.

We think this no more than a shameful charade. You should too.

In the first instance, one is not "guilty of a conflict of interest." A conflict of interest, in and of itself, is not a crime. There is only the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why, exactly, are appearances so important? We think it reflects a particular attitude about public discourse. A particularly disturbing attitude.

The only fashion in which such "conflicts" could in some way mislead or deceive the reader is with the reader's tacit or criminally negligent acquiescence. Specifically, where the reader is unwilling or unable to distinguish facts presented by the writer from opinions expressed by the writer or somehow likely to substitute the latter for the former. In the absence of this basic error, the farce of "full disclosure" is totally unnecessary. Substituting appearances (or "optics" in the deception-laden parlance of our times) for skepticism only makes sense if you concede the argument that opinion ought to be actionable and that appearances can color facts. That is, that the act of telling you we think crude is [cheap/dear] and that going [long/short] seems to make sense, somehow makes us responsible if you, without taking the time to avail yourself of any other data, lose your ass on crude. It is that kind of thinking that makes people sue because, though they spent less time on their investments than buying a widescreen TV, they didn't get 8% returns last year.

Zero Hedge is about many things. One is certainly the connection between skepticism and personal responsibility in matters financial. We have no intention of enabling the sort of thinking process that facilitates the widespread fleecing of the country by ratings agencies. ("Gee George, Moodys says its AAA-OK!"). In other words, we have no intention of treating you like "dumb money." Skeptical market participants have no need of unfortunately named "full disclosure" disclosures that purport to purge a writer of some sort of original sin and leave behind a pure, unadulterated intellect. In the first place, by definition, no disclosure is ever "full." Secondly, one does not suddenly acquire the literary prowess of Hemingway or the logical mastery of Aristotle of Thrace simply by revealing that some time in the last three years one may or may not have slept with the dentist of the Chief Executive Officer of XYZ, Corporation (it was dark and we were drunk- so we still aren't sure).

One of the other factors that seems to encourage such nonsense is the increasing emphasis on personality over proof. More and more news is about the newscaster. Obviously, this subjects the messenger to scrutiny and perpetuates the illusion that Becky Quick's holdings in IBM are even remotely relevant. Perhaps they are relevant so Becky Quick can show off how market wise she is. Or so when someone convinced that Becky Quick is a shortcut to riches loses the college fund and sues, she can defend herself. What a crock. Becky owns IBM? We could care less. Entertainment is great. Keep it out of our financial news please.

The most concerning aspect of this trend to us is the degree to which it is apologetic. The very act of holding a certain property somehow requires a contrite and cleansing allocution, as if one has suddenly become a defendant in the midst of pleading guilty. How did we get to this point? Since when is an act at the very core of capitalism a shameful one?

Like David Einhorn, we think that talking about investing and investments is, in every case, a good thing™ and should be encouraged at every turn. Even idiots should talk about investments. It makes it much easier to identify and deal with them (and it keeps us writing about financial idiots). As to writing about investments, we plan to do a lot of it. So how do we plan to handle conflicts?

We don't.

You should assume that at all times we are so totally just talking our book it would shock and awe you like the unexpected, early-morning arrival of a cluster of BGM-109C Tomahawks (were you a believer in the importance of "optics" that is).

If we make a off-hand remark about New Zealand sheep herders it's because we are long New Zealand West Island Cold Kut (NZ-WICK) Wool futures and Kiwi brand Condoms ("For it's pleasure"). If we are joking around about Cliff Asness, it's because we have developed a synthetic short of ARQ. If we jest about Joe Sixpack, it's because we are trying to hype our cheap-American-beer holdings so we can exit quickly. Basically, we are telling you about a position we believe in strongly enough to invest in.

We've always wondered this: Why would you want to read about a position so uncompelling that the author doesn't have the stones to put their money where their keyboard is? Even if you elected to read such material for entertainment value (what else is there anymore?) why on earth would you ever consider it "more credible."

The reality is, critical readers should read analytic posts and the rest of Zero Hedge with the blanket assumption that the author is totally "conflicted." (Phrased more logically, that the author stands to benefit from being right- imagine that). This turns the conversation to the content, and away from the author, the author's biography and the contents of their IRA account / blind trust. This (the content) is, of course, where the focus should be. If you think otherwise you might be one of those people who thinks it was a good idea for a news program hosted by Dan Rather, and where viewers spend 66% of the non-commercial time watching his mug, to be in HDTV. If you still get something out of our writing with the assumption that we are invested in our position and stand to gain personally from you believing us, well, we've done our job. If not, then our being "unconflicted" isn't going to change the fact that we have a weak argument or poorly reasoned prose. At least, if you're not one of the "optics" idiots.

People, you don't test a safe under ideal conditions for the safe and call it good. You test it with all the advantages to the burglar. And then you let the burglar cheat. If it still remains closed after that, then it's secure.

Plus, we just aren't going to spend the time checking to see if the third largest vendor of XYZ, Corporation might employ someone we once had martinis with. (Again: Full disclosure... isn't). We are effectively guaranteed to have missed something else even if we discover such a relationship and, frankly, we've had far too many martinis over the years for this kind of search to be non-trivial.

Y'know, while we're all moaning bitterly and such.

 

[Unhappy1]

Pretty sure all they're saying is we can't trust anyone with an agenda to determine which "innocent" people deserve to be protected, the only way around it is full disclosure.

They are 100% correct in that sense, without full disclosure we'll never know who has been protected and we'll never know whether or not they are innocent.

So just release personal information to the public like ID numbers or medical records? We shouldn't trust anyone with an agenda but we should trust people in the public to not have an agenda and use this information for nefarious means .

Not to mention the witch hunt where anyone and everyone will be guilty by association.

 

[Creag]

Finance Minister orders probe into Panama papers saga

Pretoria - Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has instructed investigations into the so-called Panama papers.

“The Minister of Finance has noted reports on the clients of a Panamanian legal firm and certain South Africans that may be linked to offshore bank accounts,” said the Ministry of Finance in a statement on Tuesday.

The papers, which have been leaked to media, contain records from a Panama based law firm showing how business people and world leaders have been hiding money in offshore bank accounts.

The Finance Ministry said agencies like the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and South African Reserve Bank, among others, always investigate such reports to ensure that those that have such links have complied with the law.

The Ministry said holding funds in an offshore bank is not illegal if the necessary approvals and disclosures have been made to relevant authorities.

“There are many transactions on a daily basis between South Africans and the rest of the world, and holding funds in an offshore bank is by itself not illegal, as long as the necessary approvals and disclosures have been made to the relevant authorities.

“Funds in an offshore account may contravene exchange control regulations and tax laws if the source of the funds has not been disclosed to the appropriate authorities,” said the Ministry.

Individuals or companies who are involved in businesses offshore need to ensure that they do not fall foul of, for example, Exchange Control Regulations, 1961, the Income Tax Act, 1962, and Tax Administration Act, 2011.

“Treasury welcomes the release of such information which, like the recent release of information related to the clients of HSBC, provides the basis for authorities to act against those who illegally move funds out of South Africa,” said the Ministry.

It said the world is systematically narrowing the scope for those who want to hide their offshore assets and avoid paying their taxes due to the South African fiscus.

“It is in the interests of all those hiding their assets to come clean and disclose, and government offers such persons a way to legitimise their financial affairs before they are caught out,” said the Ministry.

In the 2016 Budget, a special voluntary disclosure programme (VDP) was proposed to make it easier for non-compliant individuals and firms to disclose assets held and income earned offshore. – SAnews.gov.za

http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/finance-minister-orders-probe-panama-papers-saga

 

[Xarog]

So just release personal information to the public like ID numbers or medical records? We shouldn't trust anyone with an agenda but we should trust people in the public to not have an agenda and use this information for nefarious means .

Not to mention the witch hunt where anyone and everyone will be guilty by association.

Wikileaks is just taking the offensive against a rival through politicking. Wikileaks was very careful about what diplomatic cables it made public, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't continue to behave in that way.

Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to have some kind of confirmable neutrality in the investigations. Given Soros' known history for political partisanship in the past, I can't see how one could expect anything less of him this time. I honestly don't think he supports organisations unless he gets to lean on them when he finds it convenient; it's just not his style.

 

[Garson007]

Information should be freely available. Privacy is overrated.

 

[Unhappy1]

Wikileaks is just taking the offensive against a rival through politicking.

A rivial, sounds like wikileaks is making this a popularity contest.

Wikileaks was very careful about what diplomatic cables it made public, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't continue to behave in that way.

Well nows thats hypocritical of them then.

Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to have some kind of confirmable neutrality in the investigations. Given Soros' known history for political partisanship in the past, I can't see how one could expect anything less of him this time. I honestly don't think he supports organisations unless he gets to lean on them when he finds it convenient; it's just not his style.

Who is neutral? Someone will always find a problem with whoever.

 

[Unhappy1]

Information should be freely available. Privacy is overrated.

Well then, supply us with all your personal information.

 

[Garson007]

Well then, supply us with all your personal information.

This terrible argument again. That's only a fair request if everyone else does the same, so as to not paint a target on me.

I have shared my own personal information multiple times. My information sits in multiple databases. Hell, you yourself is likely part of a database I use in my daily job as a data analyst.

 

[Xarog]

A rivial, sounds like wikileaks is making this a popularity contest.

I think that wikileaks sees this as a hostile move by the United States to recapture the "leak" narrative. From an agitprop perspective it would serve the "evil Assange/Snowden" narrative quite neatly.

Well nows thats hypocritical of them then.

*shrug*

I only linked it to show that my spitballing wasn't that far off the mark, even if I hammed it up for dramatic effect. As I said, I think wikileaks is making a very aggressive move.

Who is neutral? Someone will always find a problem with whoever.

Certainly not the US government and George Soros. We could at least allow in some journalists whose reputation for independence is credible like Seymore Hersh. But I will say that if Michael Hudson is one of the people that got to check the records (he's part of ICIJ, rather surprisingly), and he goes on record that the thing was impartial then I'd say the whole thing was probably on the level.

 

[Unhappy1]

This terrible argument again. That's only a fair request if everyone else does the same, so as to not paint a target on me.

I have shared my own personal information multiple times. My information sits in multiple databases. Hell, you yourself is likely part of a database I use in my daily job as a data analyst.

Right so then by your logic its unfair to release all the personal information of those in the panama papers.

 

[Garson007]

Right so then by your logic its unfair to release all the personal information of those in the panama papers.

No. It's completely fair to release the information.

There are fundamental differences between this and you asking me to share my information with you on my own volition.

 

[Xarog]

Right so then by your logic its unfair to release all the personal information of those in the panama papers.

There is a potential difference in that there's no doubt that the data here contains a LOT of criminal activity. You have no such grounds to suspect his data will reveal the same kind of info.

 

[Unhappy1]

No. It's completely fair to release the information.

There are fundamental differences between this and you asking me to share my information with you on my own volition.

Name the differences then please?

 

[Unhappy1]

There is a potential difference in that there's no doubt that the data here contains a LOT of criminal activity. You have no such grounds to suspect his data will reveal the same kind of info.

Common rights cannot be denied just because someone is suspected of crime.

 

[Xarog]

Common rights cannot be denied just because someone is suspected of crime.

It wouldn't be denied, just circumstancially limited. Most rights are circumstancially limited along similar lines. I can't actually think of any absolute right.

 

[Gordon_R]

Just in case it isn't clear: Panama Papers - Leak firm Mossack Fonseca says it is 'victim of hack'. See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35975503

Edit: Also worth reading the history of Panama as a financial center: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35967590
B*stard child of US Prohibition, Wall Street secrecy, and drug money laundering, etc...

 

[Unhappy1]

It wouldn't be denied, just circumstancially limited. Most rights are circumstancially limited along similar lines. I can't actually think of any absolute right.

You don't know that, the fact is until a number of people have gone through all 2+ TB of information you don't know what you are opening people up to.