'unprecedented Leak' Exposes How The World's Wealthy Use Off-Shore Shell Companies To Hide Their Wealth

[RentingForever]

Yes, but Cameron (David) can hardly be held responsible for that!

True. Letting my class warrior head run away with me there.

[Errol]

I loathe him as well, but wouldn't hold his education against him.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Errol

[zugzwang]

West Bay Street, Nassau. The street in the Bahamas that Ian Cameron submitted as his 'usual residential address' in company accounts for Blairmore Holdings in 2006.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ian-camerons-part-in-blairmore-holdings-2016-4

[GinAndPlatonic]

Cameron states neither him, his wife or his children do not benefit now or in the future from any offshore holdings...problem with that is, did they in the past ? The press smell blood

Edited April 6, 2016 by GinAndPlatonic

[porca misèria]

On the timing (and, so far, absence of Americans): there's a big international conference coming up on exactly this issue of tax havens. Is the leak of these papers an American play to bear pressure in the negotiations?

On Cameron: if, as he claims, he has no benefit from trust funds etc then the money from those funds left by his dad is sitting around somewhere and presumably Cameron will benefit from it at some point in the future. Not to mention his very expensive education was paid for by his dad.

AIUI His dad was managing funds for investors. Not family funds, just a job (albeit an overpaid one).

There's plenty that's real to criticise Cameron over, but I don't think this particular line of attack has merit: he's simply not being sufficiently evasive, except insofar as peoples expectations project that on him.

[Errol]

The phrasing of his statement surely amounts to an admission that there were benefits in the past. He is trying to draw a line under the matter and say that no further benefits will be received.

[papag]

Twenty eight English football clubs are owned overseas in tax havens including the two largest ,maybe so they can mitigate tax and give more to their players

[campervanman]

Offshore tax evasion? Nigel quickly realised he had made a mistake in 2003 took 8 years to get out in 2011 when someone started digging.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23001529

Edited April 6, 2016 by campervanman

[Steppenpig]

The press smell blood

Beeb and sky still trying to play it down. First time for a long time, that I've felt some gratitude tpwards the uk press.

The next question to ask is, "would you have benefited if you hadn't got caught?"

[GreenDevil]

Perhaps the whistle blower is amerixan and decided he valued his freedom and decided to avoid leaking us names to keep the cia NSA of his back, wouldn't want to stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy for the next 5yrs.

[billybong]

^ bbc link - offshore mistake.

A Conservative Party spokesman said "Nigel Farage is a politician who says one thing, but then does another".

so is that a sort of welcome to the club?

Edited April 6, 2016 by billybong

[zugzwang]

Beeb and sky still trying to play it down. First time for a long time, that I've felt some gratitude tpwards the uk press.

The next question to ask is, "would you have benefited if you hadn't got caught?"

Are you a shameless and despicable parasite like your dear old dad?

[Saving For a Space Ship]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/05/panama-papers-david-cameron-finally-clears-the-air-on-family-investments-5797172/

George Osborne family business' £6m offshore deal

http://www.channel4.com/news/george-osborne-family-business-6m-deal-with-offshore-firm

[wonderpup]

I would accept that there is an 'establishment' (lower case) and most people accept that there is one in the sense of backgrounds, beliefs and job types. There may then be an inner establishment - part of some secretive controlling elite which operates as a club for the rich.

I think that a lot would accept the former but feel confused about being a member or even the concept of the latter.

You don't need a secret controlling elite in order to have an alignment of self interest(s) that deliver much the same outcome in terms of rule by an elite mainly in the interests of that elite- indeed I would even concede that many of those who are clearly beneficiaries of a given established order are quite sincere in their belief that this order is the best of all possible arrangements for everyone- having arrived at this conclusion by the unassailable logic of confiming this view with everyone they know.

I suspect that there has never been an elite in history who did not sincerely believe that their privileged postion in society was not a blessing for everyone in it. So it's entirely possible to imagine a situation in which truly terrible social arrangements persist while those who perpetuate them sincerely believe that these arrangements are both 'natural' and by extension represent the best possible outcome imaginable for all concerned.

It's only in the movies that Elites view themselves as evil- in the real world even the most brutal of regimes comes complete with a narrative in which the regime is seen as an essentially benign bulwark against the chaos that would ensue should their hold on power be broken.

Even that great totem of modern state depravity- Adolf- did not see himself as evil- in his mind he was a saviour and a prophet, bent on preserving the cultural purity and vitality of his race against the tide of the untermensch.

So no overt conspiricy is required- just a shared world view as to the 'rightness' of one's cause and the need to preserve the existing order will do. And if as a 'by product' this need to preserve the status quo also results in the perpetuation of your own wealth and power then this surely is mere serendipity- a happy alignment of the greater good with your own best interests.

Edited April 6, 2016 by wonderpup

[BorrowToLeech]

Yes, but Cameron (David) can hardly be held responsible for that!

Not the point. David Cameron's wealth obviously does not come from the sources he listed. Obviously because he went to Eton before he became prime minister, and so was clearly already rich then.

Why is he being evasive? Why did he omit the actual source of his actual wealth?

[BorrowToLeech]

well, we see the hierachy in daily life.

Say, you work as a packer at a large firm...boss says you are to work extra hours...you say no...boss give you ultimatum...the boss of that firm has some power over your life choices.

so we have a boss with some power.

His company wants to sell its services to a bigger fish, or another fish. Boss meets someone who says, join our club, we can get you business with other members...boss joins, and being in the club, he gets some work, but in order to get the favours, he must give some too.

here we have the beginnings of a group.

Add in politics, and we have group influencing groups.

The more power you wield, the more up the group you will be as people seek favour from you to enich themselves.

We all know this goes on, but then deny we are all corruptable...PC was around long before PC was invented to infiltrate things like multiculturalism.

For my money, this is why economics fails.

Economics is a viable theory of trade, but the world mostly operates according to political power (in its widest sense) and trade is just a sideshow.

[zugzwang]

Not the point. David Cameron's wealth obviously does not come from the sources he listed. Obviously because he went to Eton before he became prime minister, and so was clearly already rich then.

Why is he being evasive? Why did he omit the actual source of his actual wealth?

He's being evasive because the wealth he inherited was enormous, morally questionable, and far in excess of any sum he could have accumulated personally.

Sins of the fathers?

Besides trying to position himself as a champion of fair taxation, Old Etonian Cameron has long sought to shrug off his ‘old money’ background.

That task has not been helped by the fact he is a fifth cousin of the Queen, nor the fact his ancestors amassed a fortune from slave labor in the Caribbean.

A 2015 study by University College London study showed his ancestor General Sir James Duff received £3 million (US$4.2 million) in today’s money as compensation for the 202 slaves he had to free when the practice was abolished.

What’s in the bank?

The actual extent of Cameron’s wealth remains an enigma, but he was forced to deny having £30 million in the bank during a 2009 interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr.

On Tuesday the Guardian excerpted a passage from a recent critical book on the PM which said his late father left him around £3 million in his will. This sum, however, constituted UK assets only.

His late father also had financial links to Switzerland, which may indicate vastly more money is lurking in the family vault, journalist Isabel Oakeshott claimed. The family’s offshore firm Blairmore Holdings Inc. was moved to Ireland in 2010 – the year Cameron was elected.

Cameron’s wife Samantha, daughter of an aristocrat whose baronetcy dates back to 1755, has a substantial property portfolio worth around £20 million, Oakeshott said.

How many homes?

David Cameron claims to own just one house. This jars however with comments he made in 2009, which appear to indicate he was unsure how much property he actually has.

He told the Times: “I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”

He then asked the journalist not to mention he said “not that I can think of” in case it made him sound “like a prat.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/338643-cameron-personal-wealth-panama/

Edited April 6, 2016 by zugzwang

[stormymonday_2011]

To ensure no one is left out in the next Budget George Osborne will announce that the State Pension, JSA and Tax Credits will be paid in Austrian bearer bonds held by an offshore nominee of a citizens choice.

Edited April 6, 2016 by stormymonday_2011

[Ash4781]

The BBC went into overdrive reporting this so I've tuned out of this story. Anything juicy ?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Ash4781

[stormymonday_2011]

Ahh, now we know why the names leaked seemed to be predominantly those of the enemies of the Americans and the bankers ! eg. the Icelandic PM jailed the bankers in Iceland. The leaking was done by the biggest insiders of the establishment , maybe as a political ploy and to divert attention away from themselves ?

The organisation that leaked the papers (in turn a managed leak from wikileaks) , surely, we are to believe the ICIJ (The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) is 100% independent, non-partisan, and unbiased? Right?

The ICIJ is funded by the Adessium Foundation, Open Society Foundations, The Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Fritt Ord Foundation, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, The Ford Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and Waterloo Foundation.

• Adessium (partly funded by George Soros)

• Open Society Foundations (George Soros foundations, a top contributor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and guilty of a sordid past)

• Sigrid Rausing Trust (based in the U.K.)
• Fritt Ord Foundation (based in Norway)
• Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting (based in the U.S.)
• The Ford Foundation (Based in the U.S. and a key funder of Israeli NGOs)
• David and Lucile Packard Foundation (based in the U.S.)
• Pew Charitable Trusts (based in the U.S.)
• Waterloo Foundation (based in the U.K. (Wales))
• The "Panama Papers" were also supported (funded) by USAID, the United States Government agency which is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid.

http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-leak-offshore-financial-records-exposes-global-array-john-m-?trk=pulse_spock-articles

Very, very dodgy.

You could have omitted all that detail since in the UK the Guardian is leading the disclosure and it is 100% owned by the UK intelligence services if one is to believe some of the things I have read over the years.

If you doubt this reality just look at who stood as SDP candidates and helped scupper Michael Foots attempt to take us out of the EEC in 1983

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/comment-free-guardian-except-when-it-comes-criticising-polly-toynbee-and-sdp

The Guardian also has a bit of a history on grassing up whistleblowers such as Sarah Tisdall.

There were some interesting Twitter exchanges on Alan Rusbridgers last day at the Guardian when Wikileaks basically accused him of luring Assange to the UK so he could be effectively 'imprisoned' here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/alan-rusbridger-outgoing-guardian-editor-trolled-by-wikileaks-over-their-editor-julian-assanges-10284626.html

It was less than 'careful' in its treatment of Snowden

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/spymaster-le-carr-challenges-guardian-over-its-duty-of-care-to-edward-snowden-8740214.html

To do this once might be careless but to do it multiple times starts to look deliberate.

My advice would be that if you want to leak something that the British state would rather keep quiet do it to a Murdoch paper rather than the Guardian as the former is probably going to protect you more than the latter

Edited April 6, 2016 by stormymonday_2011

[dgul]

Article on front page of FT cites Cameron personal intervention, writing to van Rompuy on trusts to help create inheritance tax loophole.

"David Camerons personal intervention on trusts set up tax loophole

Prime minister wrote to Van Rompuy requesting special treatment for inheritance-planning vehicles"

At the moment DC is still using the standard mechanism to respond to this sort of thing - say the minimum you need to and ride it out*. It might work out for him. But the pressure is mounting - it anything else comes up he'll likely have to move into a more active approach.

*I am always astonished at how effective this strategy is. Even for quite bad behaviours, the 'public' have a poor memory and usually just move onto the next thing to moan about. (Where the 'public' is a nebulous concept quite possibly defined by how many newspapers can be sold on the story)

[The Knimbies who say No]

Would be interested in Van Rompuy's response....

"No!" = UK sovereignty trampled on, or a principled stance against questionable deals (delete/spin as appropriate)

"Yes!" = EU corruption / practical politics respecting sovereignty in specific circumstances/issues (delete/spin as appropriate)

Certainly adds something to the Brexit debate. To which side's benefit, I dunno.

Edited April 6, 2016 by The Knimbies who say No

[zugzwang]

At the moment DC is still using the standard mechanism to respond to this sort of thing - say the minimum you need to and ride it out*. It might work out for him. But the pressure is mounting - it anything else comes up he'll likely have to move into a more active approach.

*I am always astonished at how effective this strategy is. Even for quite bad behaviours, the 'public' have a poor memory and usually just move onto the next thing to moan about. (Where the 'public' is a nebulous concept quite possibly defined by how many newspapers can be sold on the story)

Without a captive BBC and a complicit media Cameron's lousy four-flushing would have been exposed years ago.

The greatest housing/immigration crisis that the country has ever seen superintended by a prime minister who can't remember how many homes he owns. Is this satire?

Sure, in good times distraction tactics work, but these are anything but good times. Time to punch his card.

[Steppenpig]

... say the minimum you need to and ride it out*.

...

*I am always astonished at how effective this strategy is....

I am always astonished how useless journalists are. I see osbourne is using the same sort of evasive language as cameron. You don't "have" money in trusts, the whole point of trusts is that someone else "has" them on your behalf and you are the beneficiary. It could just be informal language, but I suspect it is carefully chosen wordery.

(Off topic, as he hasn't been involved much, but I suspect the guy who does the business news at 8:30 a.m. on the beeb probably originally applied to be a weather girl)

[Ah-so]

Without a captive BBC and a complicit media Cameron's lousy four-flushing would have been exposed years ago.

The greatest housing/immigration crisis that the country has ever seen superintended by a prime minister who can't remember how many homes he owns. Is this satire?

Sure, in good times distraction tactics work, but these are anything but good times. Time to punch his card.

That David Cameron and his family have been dragged into the affair is clear evidence that The Establishment and The CIA are out to Get Them.