Disclaimer: The statements and articles listed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of this Blog. Aggregated content created by others is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all those links, too: Blogs have no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
FINANCIAL ARRESTS WORLDWIDE

Monday, 5 September 2011

Swiss bankers demand respect for law from US tax evasion investigators

 

Swiss bankers have rejected another UBS-style tax evasion deal following an ultimatum from the United States last week to turn over the names of more tax cheats. The US has turned up the heat on Switzerland after finding evidence that Credit Suisse and other banks allegedly helped its citizens to break the law by hiding their wealth from the tax authorities. The successful prosecution of UBS two years ago led to a Swiss-US treaty that severely dented Swiss banking secrecy laws by providing the names of nearly 5,000 bank clients.   But rather than burying the problem, the success of the deal has encouraged the US to pursue yet more banks – some of whom are rumoured to have illegally given UBS clients safe haven after Switzerland’s largest bank was caught out.   The Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) is desperate to avoid other banks facing a UBS situation and called on negotiators to find a solution this time that keeps secrecy intact. Law abiding SBA chairman Patrick Odier demanded a universal treaty binding on all countries rather than a raft of ad-hoc agreements between Switzerland and other states.   “The solution must be globally applicable, definitive and in line with current Swiss laws,” Odier said at the SBA’s annual conference in Zurich on Monday.   While accepting that Swiss banks must pay a penalty if they had broken foreign laws, Odier nevertheless denounced the latest demands from US deputy attorney-general James Cole as “too tough”.   “The US must recognise that legal certainty [of banking secrecy] is something that Switzerland must guarantee,” he said. “We cannot have one country refusing to respect the laws of another.”   The SBA pointed to the recent deals with Britain and Germany as a possible template. Under the terms of these treaties – yet to be rubber stamped – Swiss banks would pay withholding taxes on past and future earnings of foreign account holders.   Switzerland has also negotiated a new double taxation agreement with the US that is awaiting approval by the US authorities. UBS deal stands alone “I am very confident that we can find a common solution that would be in the interests of Swiss banks and the US,” SBA chief executive Claude-Alain Margelisch told swissinfo.ch.   “We solved the UBS case and I hope we find a definitive global solution for all Swiss banks. We must make sure that we do not have the same problem for a third time.”   Margelisch also dismissed the option of another UBS-style treaty despite that deal containing a paragraph that could force other Swiss banks to hand over client data if they were found to have broken US laws in the same way.   “The UBS case was special because it involved only one bank in a context that is not comparable with other Swiss banks,” Margelisch told swissinfo.ch. “I could not imagine that the Swiss parliament would be ready to pass another such treaty for the rest of the banking community during election year.”   But the latest signs coming from the US do not indicate that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is willing to compromise. Investigations have widened to around ten Swiss banks and Credit Suisse was recently served with official notice that it was being probed. Not bluffing Stories are also appearing in the media that the US negotiators are losing patience with their Swiss counterparts.   The fact that the second-highest ranking DoJ official, James Cole, has become publicly involved suggests to US tax lawyer Scott Michel that the US is not likely to withdraw its demands for new bank client data.   “It is a mistake to assume that when the DoJ makes a demand that they are bluffing,” Michel told swissinfo.ch. “There appears to be pent-up frustration that two years after the UBS case there is still evidence that other Swiss banks are helping US citizens hide their money away.”   He added: “The DoJ is not even asking for an exchange of information – a lengthy process involving case-by-case examination. They want a large batch of Swiss banking client information and they want it now.”   According to Michel, the US authorities appear to be building a legal basis to impose “draconian financial penalties” on Swiss banks that could dwarf UBS’s $780 million ($990 million) fine.   Swiss media are also reporting that the US would be prepared to start criminal legal proceedings against banks if they do not comply with their demands.

0 comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

ann croft

Disclaimer: The statements and articles listed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of this Blog. Aggregated content created by others is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all those links, too: Blogs have no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
Disclaimer: The statements and articles listed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of ProLifeBlogs. Aggregated content created by others is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all those links, too: ProLifeBlogs has no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
Site Specific Privacy Policy run in accordance with http://www.google.com/privacy.html
We can be reached via e-mail at
copsandbloggers@googlemail.com
For each visitor to our Web page, our Web server automatically recognizes information of your browser, IP address, City/State/Country.
We collect only the domain name, but not the e-mail address of visitors to our Web page, the e-mail addresses of those who communicate with us via e-mail.
The information we collect is used for internal review and is then discarded, used to improve the content of our Web page, used to customize the content and/or layout of our page for each individual visitor.
With respect to cookies: We use cookies to store visitors preferences, record user-specific information on what pages users access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors' browser type or other information that the visitor sends.
With respect to Ad Servers: To try and bring you offers that are of interest to you, we have relationships with other companies like Google (www.google.com/adsense) that we allow to place ads on our Web pages. As a result of your visit to our site, ad server companies may collect information such as your domain type, your IP address and clickstream information. For further information, consult the privacy policy of:
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
copsandbloggers@googlemail.com
If you feel that this site is not following its stated information policy, you may contact us at the above email address.

Privacy Policy (site specific)

Privacy Policy (site specific)
Privacy Policy :This blog may from time to time collect names and/or details of website visitors. This may include the mailing list, blog comments sections and in various sections of the Connected Internet site.These details will not be passed onto any other third party or other organisation unless we are required to by government or other law enforcement authority.If you contribute content, such as discussion comments, to the site, your contribution may be publicly displayed including personally identifiable information.Subscribers to the mailing list can unsubscribe at any time by writing to info (at) copsandbloggers@googlemail.com. This site links to independently run web sites outside of this domain. We take no responsibility for the privacy practices or content of such web sites.This site uses cookies to save login details and to collect statistical information about the numbers of visitors to the site.We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and would like to know your options in relation to·not having this information used by these companies, click hereThis site is suitable for all ages, but not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13 years old.This policy will be updated from time to time. If we make significant changes to this policy after that time a notice will be posted on the main pages of the website.

Stats

  © Blogger template Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP