1

Paul

A minutes silence is not going to make any difference. The government will give the savers a lifetime of the same treatment.

All those out of pocket need to collectively fund a good advocate to start looking into the failings of the GFSC for 100% of their savings.

I can guarantee once the authorities are held liable and have to repay the savers the action against Iceland will gain momentum like an F1 car off the start line!!!

Report abuse

3

the rat

why should the states use public money to pay these savers ,they took there chance and it went wrong as many things do ,but others dont go cap in hand asking the states to pay them what they have lost ,

let the bank sort them out what they offer is what you get end of ,
you took your chances and lost live with it be an adult some you win some you loose

Report abuse

5

Frustrated VOTER

Crusty: 20%

Report abuse

7

TL

PPH – if we blindly trust financial institutions and assume that they never go bust, or that if they do they then the State will bail us out, then the public stops being sensible in its financial decision making and forgets about prudence. The public absolves itself of responsibility for looking after its own money.

The system as a whole needs to be trusted, but that does not mean that we should expect every component of that system to be guaranteed.

DP schemes exist because banks can go bust. If you deposit money in a jurisidiction with no DPS, you are taking a risk. If you deposit more than £50k in a bank you are taking a risk.

Report abuse

9

Student Bob

I can’t help feeling sickened and disgusted that the LSG would indirectly trade on the names of the deceased to try and get their grubby little hands on more cash.

I vote we keep the rest of their money until they learn some respect and decency.

Report abuse

11

aumet

Let’s make things clear.
1. We, Guernsey residents have benefitted from £1.5Billion pounds revenue from the financial sector alone over the last 5 years; how much is being wiped out from the treasury available to us whilst the States dithers?
2. There is no need to use ‘tax payers’ money – although the savers paid their taxes just like the rest of us: the States could have amongst others, negotiated a repayment arrangement from Iceland at a high interest rate which would have more than covered any initial outlay to repay the savers in Landsbanki. Equally the States could have applied a windfall tax on the remaining financial institutions to cover any shortfall. Do not think that all institutions in Guernsey wish this would go away.
3.What is the cost to Guernsey’ long term reputation – particularly with Landsbanki administrators legal action against Iceland guaranteed to be in the headlines for some time?

There are ways to sort out this matter which would give kudos to our Chief Minister and his team, however, once again he shows the traits which were only too clearly identified in the Wales Audit office report of last month: i.e.
• The States of Guernsey does not have a clear strategic direction or agreement on its strategic objectives and desired outcomes
• The States of Guernsey presently lacks the structure for clear corporate leadership

So rather than attending the Tory party conference wouldn’t the Chief Minister be better putting his shoulder to the wheel and dealing with this issue in a mature statesmanlike manner rather than trying to whip up public disapproval of the savers in Landsbanki, who after all could be you or I, with his mantra of ‘no tax payers money will be used’?

Report abuse

13

Miskina

As a depositor who with my late husband put our hard earned savings into Cheshire-Guernsey before Landsbanki took over: what is upsetting is that THE STATES HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY ADVICE OR ENCOURAGEMENT. Pensioners (such as Joe and I) worked hard to save for a worry free retirement. What I consider evil is that the Chief Minister etc. broadcast that we were all fat cat tax dodging foreigners, this was an insult. He also knew of course that as I had lost most of our money (my Joe died last summer) I didn’t have any cash to sue. We’re Brits but not allowed to place money on deposit in the UK. Don’t believe all that politicians tell you. Guernsey’s reputation will take many years to rebuild.

Report abuse

15

Joe Baggott

I have no doubt that many of the sentiments that have and doubtless will be posted here are not representative of the majority of Guernsey’s population. There may be many who are thoroughly ashamed at the Island’s lack of imagination and good will. Most of the Landsbanki Victims are islanders, many of them pensioners who have paid taxes all their working lives.
The point at issue is this. The Government of Guernsey has turned its back on its own people and they deserve better treatment. I and many others believe that the GSFC did not act in due diligence despite claims to the contrary after a self appointed enquiry. We have been critical of your Chief Minister who has made claims to be acting on our behalf but still managed a visit to Iceland and then remain silent on his return.
Fact… All European depositors either pay a witholding tax or opt for disclosure of account details to their relevant tax authority. Guernsey has benefitted from this retention tax and could well afford to ease the plight of is own taxpaying residents whilst the administrators endevour to claw back what remains of our plundered deposits.

The undeniable fact remains. The States of Guernsey are the only administration anywhere to have done absolutely nothing to help the plight of Icelandic bank victims on their patch and under their watching eye.

A year on and the Mantra continues…”no taxpayers money…..2, compare that to the attitude of the Isle of Man ! All members of our family have taken what remains of our savings out of your island against the efforts of the institutions to persuade us otherwise. We at least have the satisfaction of not risking our savings to boost your tax coffers any more. It would be adding insult to injury to even consider giving your treasury a penny more.

Our mantra continues!.”GUERNSEY IS NOT A SAFE PLACE TO HAVE YOUR SAVINGS “

Report abuse

17

Frustrated VOTER

TL: Indeed, retail deposits, at £17 billion, are “only” 14% of total deposits here – or over a quarter of a million for every man, woman, and child on the island – so hardly “very small”.

Yes, the UK govt propped up *UK* banks for structural reasons.

But they also provided full compensation to the Icesave depositors, an internet-only branch of a non-UK bank that had no physical presence in the UK, took only retail deposits, and didn’t lend or provide liquidity to any UK companies. They didn’t prop up Icesave, they let it fail, but made sure the savers didn’t lose out.

Why did they help out the 0.5% of the population who saved in a bank that had no structural importance to the UK and whose failure would have no impact on the economy? (Other than the loss of the 0.5%’s savings – 1% of Guerns saved in LG).

Could it be because they feel they have a responsibility to savers in any bank they allow to operate in their “well-regulated” jurisdiction?

The Isle of Man clearly felt the same in regards to Kaupthing…

Report abuse

19

TM

So let me get this straight. Placing money into a bank that was offering rates no higher than Scarborough Building Society was a risk was it? Tell me would that be the same risk millions of depositors took when they put their hard earned money into Lloyds TSB or RBS or Icesave but which were bailed out by the British taxpayer? Would they be banks you have your money in which nearly went bust. Would that be the same risk Icelanders took with their hard earned money who thanks to the IMF are still able to draw their money out. Tell me what have depositors in Landsbanki Guernsey done to deserve their treatment? And yes I did spread my risk but that doesn’t cancel an injustice.

Report abuse

21

Dave

I beleive the Landsbanki Depositors have every right to complain about the loss of the savings. Many of the Guernsey tax payers have a very closed view of the matter. They should all remember that if they had any account savings or otherwise held in Guernsey with RBS, Natwest, Lloyds they would also have lost their money had their banks not been saved by the UK tax payer. I wonder how many of them would be asking for fair treatmentfrom the States

Report abuse

23

WB

To all those myopic contributors to this article, e.g. Pyer,Crusty,the Rat, Student Bob to name but a few, I wonder if they realise that were it not for the Landsbanki debacle, Guernsey STILL would not have a Depositors’ Protection Scheme (or at best, they (the States) would still be arguing the toss. The DPS is not worth the paper it is printed on. So, beware all those criticizers!
So to all those, especially the above-named, instead of your insensitive, hardened and callous thinking, I wish you well, and hope this never happens to you, because, you know, what goes around, comes around. And before you put mouth into action again,please engage brain, and read all the other comments attached to this article. You might learn a thing or two.

Report abuse

25

Crusty

I,m sorry but if you all knew that Guernsey did not have a DPS,and as stated by Gary Blandhard in his post ,this has been nown for more than a decade,,, then why did these depositors not do their homework and ask the relevent people about the risks of having their savings in such an account??? after all it was ,as they keep stating, their savings so ,,,,their respondsibilty,,, I appreiciate that is easy to shut the door after the horse has bolted ,but if I had money with any bank etc,, I and it was going to be my ticket to an easier retirement,, and there for my children,, trust me it is something that I would be guarding very carefully, and personnal I would have rather taken a smaller profit and slept well,, the big banks may not pay alot but they are a pretty safe bet,

Report abuse

27

nordoficeland

victim

Noun
1. a person or thing that suffers harm or death
2. a person who is tricked or swindled
3. a living person or animal sacrificed in a religious rite [Latin victima]

none of you are victims. Charybdis and Limbourne mariners were heroes and victims. they get a minute’s silence you gave yourselves 3. Get a grip

Report abuse

29

Student Bob

Myopic? Moi??

That’s a bit rich. I’m not the one who stuffed all my savings into a dodgy Icelandic bank.

Student Bob likes to diversify.

nordoficeland – let’s not forget the heroes and victims who gave their lives in service to their countries. World Wars, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan. It’s disgusting that the LSG should attempt to invoke comparison. Perhaps, when a Landisbanki saver dies in the course of action, trying to wrestle another few quid from the hands of Deputy Trott, then we’ll have a minutes silence.

Report abuse

31

Mark

Pyer

For the umpteenth time on this online forum savers did not “invest” in the bank because the shares were not available for purchase by the general public, as far as I am aware; however, they did DEPOSIT their savings in the Guernsey operation of the Cheshire, a UK building society, which was supposedly as safe as houses. Can you not spot the difference?

Remaining savings are being moved from Guernsey to the Isle of Man, which has put its money where its mouth is to the tune of £193m and, wherever possible, to the UK which stumped up £7.5bn of public funds. Due to the serious deficiencies of the DCS depositing savings in Guernsey can still be very detrimental to your wealth.

Contrary to popular belief on this online forum deposits are indeed extremely important to a small territory like Guernsey – all the more so after the meltdown in the wholesale money markets. These deposits are fast haemorrhaging away – and this is only partly due to exchange rate fluctuations and the decline in fiduciary deposits from Swiss private banks.

Report abuse

33

Gary Blanchford

The following , who use nom de plumes to hide behide and from their posts show a distinct lack of knowledge of the situation are not really worth the bother of responding to, their comments are selfish, immature and purely self gratifying.
Student Bob, noedoficeland, Crusty, Muzeek, pyer and the rat.
Please feel free to respond, but have the courage of your convictions to use you own names and not skulk behind pseudonames, its is a sign of weakness.

Report abuse

35

The Man

Crusty wins award for most self defeating comment of the year!

“the big banks may not pay alot but they are a pretty safe bet, ”

Taken into the context of Governments dipping into their funds to help out banks/depositors.

By using that statement you have nullified your own arguement.

If The UK Government had not used taxpayers funds to prop up the so called “safe” banks, they would have had a massive compensation issue on the hands the following week because these fantastic safe banks wouldnt be in business anymore.

Its the same thing as this no??

They are only safe because their government helped them usiung tax payers funds before they failed, thats the difference here.

There is no such thing as a safe bank, by thinking there is has led you into the same trap as the Landisbanki depositors. If you bank with RBS and the UK had not bailed them out, you’d be pretty angry would you not, you would want your money back would you not??

The GFSC carried on ticking their boxes and fiddled whilst Rome burned. Guernsey prides itself on being a well regulated environment, yet its failed miserably to pre-empt the worst effects of the Landisbanki collapse.

To that end, the states are culpable, we knew something was wrong, we ignored it, we let these people lose their life savings.

Report abuse

37

Jennifer

There appear to be a lot of ill informed people.
Was Landsbanki not regarded as one of the top 150 banks worldwide before it went bust?
I’m certain this rating was higher than some other local high street banks!
If the rating was wrong then surely that’s why the regulator is in place – to correct such miss-conceptions and they should have stopped the local Landsbanki taking any further deposits once they knew, or should have known of its parlous state.
Landsbanki depositors are generally not asking the Government to give them a free handout – what they are asking is for an advance to ease their cash-flow and financial hardship.
It has also been seen that the Icelandic Government has looked favourably upon both the Dutch & UK Government in agreeing to repay those Government loans used to fund advances or return of deposits to the savers in their jurisdictions.
I believe that the Guernsey Government would have been similarly placed and saved the local banking reputation had it taken similar action to other reputable western Governments.
As a local depositor for every £80 deposited with Landsbanki I have already paid £20 to the local government in income tax. If I get 80% of my £80 back that is £64. The anticipated shortfall currently is therefore £16. Can the States not loan me back £16 of the £20 already paid in income tax to ease my financial plight?
We are not asking for your money, just a loan of part of the tax that we have already paid on our local earnings.

Report abuse

39

pyer

Mark

You have managed to highlight a small part of the problem. You and others who were investors in the ‘safe as houses’ Cheshire Building Society, which was then subsequently taken over by a bank from Iceland. So ‘safe as houses’ becomes not so secure – I assume you noticed the change, re-assessed the risk and decided to stay put

Also, you have answered the first part of my question, in that you have moved your savings to the Isle of Man, but you fail to say if you have gone for the absolute maximum return, or a lesser return with a ‘safer’ institution, DPS or not

F. Erker
Do you know how many millions make up a billion? Your comment that Guernsey has made ‘billions and billions …. over the last decade’ seems a tad over optimistic to me.
Secondly, I believe you are the first person to describe Landsbanki as a ‘High Street bank’. which it never was.

Report abuse

41

The Man

Crusty

The big banks were saved by the Taxpayer, your point is laughable.

Report abuse

43

Greg

Jennifer, I agree that there are a lot ill informed people out there. But please note, it is not a regulators job to comment on the rating of a bank as applied by a ratings agency.

To everyone commenting on the depositor v investor “debtate”, perhaps one should consider that anyone with cash on short term deposit be termed a depositor. However, people who purchased longer terms “bonds” could easily been seen in a different light. A person purchasing a 1 year corporate bond would be considered an investor, and a 1 year fixed deposit is very similar in structure to a corporate bond. In fact, the corporate bond is actually more flexible for the holder!

Frustrated Voter:- You make a very good point re people who had long term fixed deals with Cheshire prior to Landsbanki. Was there really no chance to redeem these early due to the takeover?

F Erker:- Guernsey has not made billions and billions off the back of deposits. That is a fact, and I would love to see any evidence that you have to back up your statement.

Gary Blanchford:- You’re not going to get people to post using their realnames. Many of the names you mention actively post on this forum in a variety of threads, and quite rightly might want to remain anonymous.

Report abuse

45

Greg

Stephen John, I’m not sure what data the GFSC would use when regulating a financial institution, as i’ve never worked in that field.

But my point is that regulators should be completely independent from the privately owned rating agencies, and shouldn’t comment on a rating being given by an agency to a particular bank or security. But if S&P had suddenly downgraded Landsbanki debt to C, then privately it would be remiss of the regulator not to take notice and perhaps examine why.

Report abuse

47

Stephen John

Frustrated Voter

Being realistic the fate of a relatively small number of bank depositors doesn’t really worry Guernsey, nor does it worry Guernsey about irs reputation.

There are two reasons for this

1 Deposit banking is a small bit player in the world of Guernsey finance

2 The clients who Guernsey attracts care only about themselves and certainly not those such as Landsbanki depositors.

Sad but true.

If it were the other way around, the States would be falling over itself to protect their core business.

Report abuse

49

Frustrated VOTER

Greg: the discussion was (I thought) about the definitions of “deposits” and “investments”, rather than about payout profiles.

I think you’ll find the every financial adviser anywhere will put corporate bonds and fixed term bank accounts in different asset clases, and every regulator in the world (whether they have a DCS or not) will define the latter as “deposits”….

Report abuse

51

Greg

I find it interesting that none of the Expat Landsbanki investors who have posted above have not responded to my question on what tax they have actually paid to the Guernsey Tax Authorities………

Report abuse

53

Mark

Pyer

It was never – and still isn’t – a case of chasing the “maximum return”. It was simply a case of depositing hard-earned savings in a safe UK building society offering a fairly average return in comparison with the other building societies.

Naturally they were alarmed when the GFSC sanctioned the sale of their savings to an Icelandic bank that they’d never heard of. But you and others on this forum are right: Cheshire savers should never have allowed themselves to be reassured by the GFSC authorisation, the parental guarantee and Guernsey’s hitherto excellent reputation as a deposit centre.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing: how could they ever have imagined that Guernsey would be the only country in the world to refuse to help stricken savers?

Greg

A building society deposit, whether instant access, 30-days’ notice, 90-days’ notice, one year’s notice – or whatever – cannot be compared to an investment bond by any stretch of the imagination. A deposit is always a deposit, not an investment. The latter is always a riskier proposition – that’s why most ordinary savers steer well clear of investments.

Report abuse

55

Mark

Greg

Building societies pay INTEREST on deposits, be it instant-access of fixed-term. Riskier corporate bonds pay a coupon, not interest. There’s a subtle but important difference.

Guernsey-resident savers pay local Guernsey tax; expat savers pay Guernsey tax via the Savings Directive. But more importantly, both have been contributing to the success story of Guernsey’s finance centre for years.

The UK Government used £7.5 billion of public funds – including UK (not Guernsey) taxpayers money – to bail out the financial system, including the intrinsically-linked Guernsey finance centre i.e. UK (not Guernsey) taxpayers rescued Guernsey from oblivion.

Do you think the UK should have cut the Guernsey operations of Northern Rock, Lloyds HBOS and RBS NatWest loose and just stood by while the Guernsey finance centre sank under the weight of the loss of £billions in deposits in those three banking groups?

The Isle of Man used £193 million – yes, that’s £193 million of public funds to bail out Kaupthing IoM savers.

Guernsey cannot afford a single penny to bail out Cheshire LG savers. Equally, it cannot afford not to do so………..

Report abuse

57

Mark

Greg

I have admitted nothing of the sort, either implicitly or otherwise, so please think carefully before making such a serious accusation.

And you haven’t answered my question: should the UK taxpayer have allowed the Guernsey finance centre to sink without trace rather than using UK public funds to bail out Northern Rock, Lloyds HBOS and RBS NatWest including their Guernsey operations thereby safeguarding the £ billions of deposits held in Guernsey?

Report abuse

59

Stephen John

Greg

As you believe that someone choosing the withholding tax option is evading taxation, if you work in finance have you, would you: report these clients?

Report abuse

61

Greg

Stephen John, well as far as I can remember (and I’ve not worked with private clients for a few years now) their details would be passed to compliance who would then make a general report to the GFSC.

Report abuse

63

Greg

Stephen, I’m sure Richard Murphy is fully aware of the in’s and out’s of the EUSTD, as are the GFSC.

I think the witholding tax option was only included to give a “level playing field” with a couple of other countries within the EU. It’s fairly inconsequential anyway, as it will be phased out after a number of years, and it also only applies to private individuals.

I’m not sure if the figures are actually publicly available, but the total take of the witholding tax was so tiny that it was laughable. In my experience at local institutions, the vast majority of private individuals who have accounts are happy to have their details disclosed. They are not tax evaders, which is why I was suprised at the number of Landsbanki depositors who admitted to paying witholding tax.

Report abuse

65

Stephen John

Greg and David

What confuses me is that the withholding tax option is perfectly legal.

Are you saying that a client who chooses that route is seen by Guernsey as being a tax evader?

I can understand if by due diligence you suspect from knowledge of a client’s affairs that tax evasion takes place, but the intimation from Greg is that the test is withholding tax = tax evasion. It seems it is then up to the client to prove he or she is not an evader.

Inconsequential or not, it is a concern that in some finance houses in guernsey those who choose the legal acceptable withholding tax route are automatically regarded as tax evaders.

Report abuse

67

Greg

David, would it not be that you would still have to declare your offshore interest to your own tax jurisdiction, even if you had paid a higher level of tax on it in another jurisdiction? I thought you had to declare global income?

Report abuse

69

David

Greg
Yes, I believe you should do so, but its a slightly different scenario as no tax will have been evaded and so crime has been committed.

Arnald
You’ve just proved once and for all how ignorant and totally ill-informed you are about the industry which you take great pleasure in trying to destroy.

Report abuse

71

Arnald

David
No. As I’ve said a million times, it’s the criminals and cheats I want out, easily possible with transparency and marketing of products that DO something as opposed to specifically designed tax avoidance. If tax is saved and efficiency makes a real-economy company more successful and employ more etc then that’s just part of it and the success of both service provider and product user is to be applauded. If the rise in registered business is led by proper investment capital then I cannot have a problem. Similarly with funds. There is no reason why fund operations can’t be run offshore and take advantage of lower tax rates.

Unfortunately I am sceptical that this is the case. It’s one thing for someone’s surplus to be injected into the real economy in a cost effective manner, quite something different to use vehicles designed to wash transaction paths, confuse ownership and globally located for maximum camouflage. When you look at the placings of these so-called ‘investment’ structures, and the legal or constitutional rules employed, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that if those placings were derived from criminality, it would be next to impossible to prove.

This is the only angle I have, apart from the greed and the moral acceptance that undermining other jurisdictions societies is a legitimate business model (especially when they start crying when the secrecy drops a bit and motives are revealed). There is a fundamental and incalculable and untraceable risk built in to global systems. The necessities for rapid transfer of money opened up a whole world of opportunity, sold to regulators and legislators and governments as making the markets more efficient, and all the other Chicago school tosh – who lapped up the dollar signs and turned a blind eye.

The set back for global development due to, in part, jurisdictions like Guernsey (and don’t keep saying it wasn’t, nobody knew what was going on here and there was no way to find out), cannot be understated. We have a responsibilty as administrators and wielders of capital power to be fair and just, an accountancy necessity or so it is claimed.

Like Spice should not be treated as ‘safe’ because it was legal, and hiding behind loopholes in marketing and trading rules to have maximum market share, and then banned in an equally ignorant interpretation of ‘decent society’; the finance industry has to accept that the very attraction of greed and the obstructive legislation we churn out is not ‘safe’, ‘efficient’, socially desirable, ethical or accountable and it should brought in line with any other consumer product with respect to societal damage mitigation.

So for all the wealth made by simply persuading hosts to charge them nothing for the privilege of bigger profits and less democracy, what has the Guernsey response been to the biggest public financial loss ever, with those countries who rely on charity (while business takes the land and resources and then abuses the trust by shifting the profits elsewhere, with no recourse for justice or indeed a plea for some understanding) or western companies investments, whose cash dried out and hard fought for supply routes that were refined over decades are gone, are now in more chaos than is rationally explainable.

Why does it have to be like that? Why is the fate of billions utterly dependent on how ‘well regulated’ jurisdictions are? Why is it an acceptable defence against critics to say ‘legal’, citing government approval, yet in the same breath will pour invective on anyone that wants to investigate these government privileges.

Personally I am staggered by the lack of any decency within the industry and especially by the States when confronted with evasion, laundering and fraud investigations, never strong condemnations, never any promises of rethinks and enquiries – just reiterations of how rich people are and how rich people like us and oh look, white list, respect, stable, sophisticated and a bunch of numbers that does nothing to prove integrity, but rather highlights how much dirt there might be.

I don’t understand why producing a short data receipt on every transaction that can be accessed by responsible agencies for analysis is some sort of ‘wanting to destroy the industry’ predicator.

Mobile phones have to, and that’s personal. Credit cards, energy corps, in fact most other western domiciled industries are lhaving to work under much stricter public safety regulations, ensuring mostly trustworthy products on the shelves and showrooms, with consumer powers and tastes accounted for.

Oh, and which part of my ignorant last post do you contest and can you prove that I’m wrong?

Do we know who owns those football clubs yet?

Kinda basic don’t you agree? Why the confusion?

Report abuse

73

Arnald

David
All this “can’t prove, won’t prove” defence shows is complacency.

Of course you could prove if there are evaders.

You could tell all relevant tax authorities details of your clients’ ‘investments’.

There’s loads of things.

Criminals need secrecy, why defend secrecy? What use is it in the real world?

Has the States considered a 90% tax on the bosses of the companies that benefited from the use of £100Ms of taxpayer incentive?

They ought to.

Report abuse

75

TL

Arnald

“Of course you could prove if there are evaders.” – yes, this could be proved where they are known. But that was not the question you asked, or to which David was responding, was it? You don’t even know what your own point is half the time (and I am probably being generous there).

And the secrecy accusation again. In what way are we more secret that any other major onshore jurisdiction? We do not rely on or offer secrecy.

Report abuse

77

George

Arnald,

I’ve been reading your posts for a long time, seen you change your forum name a couple of times, presumably because your finance industry employer found out about your rabid postings.

Recent events seem to have really pushed you over the edge…you really are coming out with some ridiculous stuff these days. Many times i’ve started typing a response to one of your madcap postings, but every time I delete it because I realise that no matter what I say nothing will change your mind.

I suspect that you probably need some form of therapy, although I have no doubt that you consider yourself perfectly sane and rational.

Report abuse

79

TL

Ray

You are right to an extent – ironically the BNP “oxygen of publicity” on Question Time is a good comparison.

I too have stopped trying to enter into discussion with Arnald because he is so determined that he is right that he ignores or simply disputes (without any basis for doing so) anything that he does not agree with or which does not fit with his perceived vision of the finance industry. Asking for explanations or justification of earlier points just leads to new allegations, etc.

Now I confine myself to occasionally pointing out his more obvious inaccuracies which, I feel cannot go unchallenged. I agree, life is a lot better.

However, I am not sure sure that he will wither away if not challenged. He clearly has too much time on his hands and too much prejudiced, cynical hatred in his soul. I fear that he would keep making unsubstantiated allegations and setting out confused theories of causation until he eventually gets his inevitable heart attack.

But he does remind me of that megaphone preacher on Oxford Street. Everyone hears what he says (they have no choice) but 99% of the listeners end up pitying the poor guy.

Report abuse

81

Arnald

Aeschylus
what sort of idiocy is that?

TL
we are a secrecy jurisdiction. Get over it. Why pretend otherwise? You never offer the counter argument. You cannot.

I’ll hazard a guess that I know more about social drivers and economic philosophy than you.

You cannot even see your hands for the veil of ignorance.

Come on. Point for point deconstruction of my numerous unanswered questions. Prove your faith. Make me look a simpleton. I don’t care.

The industry has already been complicit of wasting £200M and counting from the tax payer that your associations want to diminish further.

Are you seriously believing that that is respected?

You take the biscuits, all of them.

Tell me the truth and demonstrate how I’m wrong. Tell me that what I have witnessed, what I’ve been told, what actually happened, the entries I passed, the files I’ve compiled, the boasting, the media, the research, the logic, the years and the horses mouth admissions and personal apologies ARE WRONG.

Rank nonsense. You cannot. You don’t even try.
You don’t have the decency to check any of it out. You believe in yourself. Ride that hubris.

Next you’ll be saying that the BNP have got a point about MPs expenses.

Tell me why I am wrong and I can stop all this and give myself a life.

Report abuse

83

David

Arnald
You are cloning into Richard Murphy with every posting. Do you ghost-write for him then ?
You are writing utter tripe, as always.
As I said earlier in the week, I just can’t be a***d with responding to your rantings. Far more important, interesting and satisfying things to be getting on with while you rattle around your padded cell.
Obviously you’re not very busy though if you’ve got so much taxpayer-funded time to waste.

Report abuse

85

Aeschylus

Arnald says, “Next you’ll be saying that the BNP have got a point about MPs expenses.”

The only BNP in Guernsey is Banque Nationale de Paris and, so far as I know, there are no MP’s in Guernsey. Yet.

Why do I point this out? Because this blog is about Landsbanki depositors. “For some, it is too late” is the subject matter of this blog and this subject matter is way too important for it to be hijacked for another’s tirade on topics not relevant to the blog.

Report abuse

87

TL

Interesting link Arnald. I note that it classes the UK, US and Netherlands as secrecy jurisdictions.

As for its report on Guernsey, I see no particular issue there and it seems to confirm that Guernsey is well regulated and requires general disclosure of beneficial ownership. Some of the information stated is now out of date and there are greater disclosure requirements than listed there.

So which bit of that, exactly, are you saying points to Guernsey being a secrecy jurisdiction?

You still have not answered my question of why you allege we are a secrecy jurisdiction.

Yet again your sniping is without foundation.

Report abuse

89

Arnald

TL
If I wanted to buy one of those big empty houses in Mayfair from one of the guernsey based property funds, in a series of deals with the fund and other fund or company owned, could I get any information about the beneficial owner of those companies, his activities and his reputation to gauge worthiness and suitability?

I’m genuinely interested, because if it is possible to find out information about share owning entities in real economy assets, that are based in guernsey, in order for me to maximise my decision making process, allow for personal emotion and feel a human accomplishment of a job well done, then it would seem i have been wrong.

If I wanted to know who the subsidiaries are of a network of funds or whatever, what arrangements they have in place, their potential propensity for tax abuse, could I find out and be satisfied with complete knowledge to help me spend my money in an informed way?

If I am the UK tax man, and I suspect that mr x is hiding a vehicle that was known for a while then disappeared without trace, what would i need to do to trace that ‘investment’?
Since I am the UK taxman, and they are a UK citizen, do you not agree that it should be easy. Is it easy? Here I don’t know. One person tells me it’s nigh on impossible, as backed up with statistics, others tell me a phone call will do it, just about.

Is the passing on of that information compulsory or could you retain citing client privacy?

Do the Guernsey institutions hold the beneficial owner info, as well as all subs, relateds, shareholders, tstees, institutes and corporates blah blah even if they have been passed on from places like chf or liecht?

Is data available to understand the make up of the assets and holders to evaluate systemic risk within or without Guernsey?

Are the workings of mutual or potential clients in other jurisdictions known to you? If not, how is risk calculable?

If I wanted to know the make up of a multinat, would Guernsey based assets be scrutinisable?

Off the top of my head, these are things that i could want to do. Are we as transparent as we have been told?

I will pass your answers to murphy’s blog, along with anything else you don’t agree with, and request that Guernsey is removed from the research due to it being false.

Seriously.

Did you note the secrecy jurisdiction definition?

How is it not applicable

Report abuse

91

TL

Arnald

Your scenarios are not really about secrecy in terms of tax abuse or hiding assets, they are about you not knowing who you are dealing with in a commercial transaction, but I will try to answer.

Buying the Mayfair house – why do you need to know? you get the house. what else is relevant? the people setting up the Guernsey property fund will know who the beneficial owners are and will tell the authorities if asked or will tell the authorities if they suspect tax evasion. That is not secrecy.

Subsidiaries of a fund – if you are investing, you will have all required details disclosed to you (in terms of underlying subsidiaries and assets and owners/controllers). Meanwhile, the GFSC and the service providers in Guernsey will know who is controlling the structure. No secrecy there.

UK tax man – not quite my area. However, Guernsey service providers are required to report suspicious transactions. In that respect (as with the general obligations about knowing the ultimate beneficial owner) the requirements are more stringent here than in the UK. My understanding is that the UK tax man can require the firms providing services to the last known holder of the asset to disclose where it went, and then on and then on until it is found. The law requires the information to be disclosed, so no attempt at secrecy there. I am not saying it is foolproof, but the system is not creating any secrecy.

Institutions knowing details – ALL service providers in Guernsey are required to know the ultimate owners of the structures for which they act. When I was in the UK we would stop as soon as we were told that Company A was owned by Company B. Here, we have to find out who owns Company B and then Company C etc until we know the real people behind it. So yes, the system requires us to know who are the beneficiaries and controllers.

I am not sure that I know what you’re asking with the next 3 questions.

Hopefully you can see from the above that our regulations require disclosure by the client to the service provider, and where necessary, disclosure by the service provider to the authorities. We are more stringent than onshore jurisdictions (at least the UK, which is my own experience) so I really do not see any reason for criticism.

As for the definition of “secrecy jurisdiction” on that link, I saw a statement that said that they were referring to all “tax havens” as “secrecy jurisdictions” since the former term is disputed. The main reason Guernsey disputes being a tax haven is because it is not a secrecy jurisdiction and so that re-definition does not work.

I also noticed that the website you linked to associates PCCs with secrecy. As with any company, the owners must be known to the people setting up the company and each cell. PCCs are no more secret than a bundle of non-cellular companies. The whole premise of the suggestion that they are associated with secrecy is simply wrong.

Report abuse

93

Arnald

Sorry chaps. Bad hair day.
I’m a philosophical anti fascist to my core and seeing that nazi showcased on the BBC in 2009 felt like a gross violation of the struggle to break their grip on humanity. Couple that with people telling me that this nazi “has got a point”, and that, I, like nazis are getting “oxygen” and you get a perfect storm of self righteous hysteria.

Lest we forget, Aeschylus, nazism never went away. One thing that we have lost is passion, generally, as our uniform and bland materialistic pursuits close the mind. Extremist ideology sparks energy and feeling, a sense of the future potential. The disaffected are drawn like moths to the flame.

No nazi has a “good point”. No former nazi has a “good point”. No future nazi has a “good point”. OK, Aeschylus? It’s more important than finance industry abuse of civilisation.

Guernsey is very close to corporatism. This idea that everything the OFC does is Guernsey, that an attack on abusive structures ian an attack on Guernsey, anyone speaking their mind about the shysters gets labelled a ‘commie’ and a traitor. Daily listings of propagandist ‘good news’. A deliberate disconnect from other ideological frameworks, accusing them of mendacious and immoral practices. This constant repetition of core belief like a mantra, with the regulatory flag to gather around. A control of the media. Forcing the public to believe that the good for the corp is good for the people, detractors waiting to steal your land, women and souls. Continually form alliances with other similar regimes. Big showy love ins.

Legislation designed to keep the population poor enough for their toil but not rich enough to get lazy. A designed elitist education to maintain the necessary Officer class. Politicians that have no qualms about basic dishonesty. A compliant Church. A devotion to the armed forces.

Fervent, intellectualised nationalism based on Symbology. Populist “they are different to us” diatribes. An easy recourse to blaming others for self inflicted failures.

Guernsey tries to pride itself on old school Libertarian ideals, which is basically a license for the rich to do whatever they like without consequence, but the reality is a tenuous corporatist dialogue, without the martial imposition on our personal lives.

Of course any resemblence to Fascistic corporatism requires things far removed from the Finance trope, but you see, and here is a nub:

It must never remain far from the imagination that a reduced States membership with an Executive centre is entirely, almost inevitably doomed to faction control. The concentration of wealth/power at our bidding, to disrupt, take over, break key economic sectors, is an enticing WMD. The local public is already compliant and feeling threatened from “totalitarian regimes”.

The constitutionalists are in a closed door thinking. The legal ‘elders’ already command too much influence.

This is not the time for executive government. The rag-tag we have now can be improved wholescale with some basic operational management (I’m available). The civil service can be reformed without too much pain and savings made through intelligent systems. The decision making process needs some thought. More debates, backscene, to finalise shortlists, then constructed public pours-ou-contres with champion speeches. A clearly communicated definition of the problem, and a breakdown in the proposal to illustrate how the problem would be addressed. A further scrutiny to understand any unknown known, known unknown and unknown unknown consequences. The only known known is what Dave Jones will say.

Talking about Rumsfeld again, the Bush administration was scarily fascistic. Corporate militaristic expansionism.

Wolfie does have it right, Mister Inder, the power must be with the people otherwise corruption in a small island, with a powerful, unassailable elite, is like me predicting it will rain this year.

Oppose GIBA and other vested interests. Support Deputy Fallaize in creating a people’s representation, that speaks to the electorate and wider public first, and factors in corporate assistance as it needs. The contract should be from public to state and from corp to public.

We must not accept political wishlists from the finance industry as legitimate claims. That thinking has lost us £200M in two years.

That would get someone sacked in a real job, Lyndon. Unless you are a banker.

Get behind the LBGsy victims. Stop worshipping the corporate and think about humanity. Else the fascists will be back.

People first.

Report abuse

95

Arnald

TL
Thanks. I was giving it a rest, as i read all those last posts on that friday aft (Tucker, if it’s on this thread, questioning my movements makes you look creepy – I’m ill if you want to know, best not touch that keyboard as it is infectious) thinking “careering wildly” seems apt.

I understand what you’re saying – there is no constitution, nor specific law – but there are devils in those legal and accounting structures and the relationships between cos, multinat subs and the like, that obscure audit and fair and just spirit of the rules.

I honestly don’t believe that the research in that link would include us in the list if it didn’t have reason. There’s nothing very ‘agitating’ about it. The sources are all OECD and other such. I just haven’t found a way to express a question that is relevant. I’ll try once more.

The issue of being able to judge whether or not ABC Finance Co shoul accept business must surely consider recent activity by the beneficial owner of the proposition, no matter where it was done. Is that possible if they are a “sophisticated” player, like the Icelandic boys?

Why didn’t the reg auths around the world spot the risks within the multinats? What is the purpose of switching assets between different companies within the same OFC institution, where overall control of a whole bunch of companies that ‘trade’ with each other lies with one or two people?
Each time it moves it receives some benefit financially, sometimes losses, there are no triggers except timing, so it’s certainly not investing with any focus. So what is it doing? And would someone being bought out by one of the corps in this eg be able to find out all the movements of the capital, or debt, that is being used in the buyout? Would they be able to find out that the original source of funding was legal?

That’s the question a bit better.

I’m not a mindless fanatic, so apologies if it seems that way. Face to face works much better and faster.

Report abuse

97

Arnald

TL
Only with an agreement, else it goes to the courts, even in serious fraud cases. Some african govs have had to win legal cases to see info on our arms dealers we care for.
And how useful are TIEAs.

The opinion I get from workers here is that they are completely transparent, and that TIEAs provide that transparency. We’ve only got one that’s live at the moment.

The other opinion which is based on the actual wording is that the investigating authority need to know all the details that they would be trying to uncover.

You only have to look at the hit rate for US-Cayman investigations. Do you imagine the IRS are shy? Or is it that the request can be refused on a technicality?

Your words and the reality do not add up.

As for non commercial transactions…..

The vast proportion of global trade is in financial transactions, the overwhelming proportion of those trades are interbank.

You tell me why, and what benefit could that possibly have on 1) the public and 2) the banks? Do you think those transactions are there to be analysed in your so called transparent, and conveniently secret, world?

Reality TL, not cosiness.

Report abuse

99

TL

Arnald – the issues that you raise exist in all cross-border investigations. The fact that the authorities from country X cannot gain ready access to the books and records of a company in country Y is common, no matter what jurisdiction you are talking about.

My point is that our system is no more secret than the UK, France, etc. And why mention Cayman? Their regime is different to ours. They don’t even have a tax authority that can speak to the IRS. We are talking about Guernsey here.

You said previously “TL we are a secrecy jurisdiction. Get over it.” but have not pointed to any justification for this claim other than your suspicions.

If we are a secrecy jurisdiction, our laws and rules would need to protect privacy and confidentiality to a greater extent than is the case in “normal” jurisdictions. You have repeatedly failed to tell me how our laws do this. I am telling you that they do not.

It seems that you are saying that we must be secret because the rules of law, privacy and confidentiality that we and every other developed nation adhere to mean that sometimes people can hide their real intentions from the authorities and from the people that they deal with. On that basis, the whole world is secret and so please drop the accusations about Guernsey in particular.

Report abuse

101

Arnald

TL
Why do we get pieces about non discosure orders, ‘exodus’ and the ‘fear’ thereof?

Surely if we were not secret the UK would know exactly what was what with their tax eligible residents with Gsy products.

Or the credit crunch would not have happened because the source and destination of the toxic vector could be located and quantified.

Or are you like David saying we had nothing to do with the last two years and the $15T that is destined for someone’s pocket. In a secrecy jurisdiction.

Report abuse

103

TL

Arnald – I have a feeling you are being deliberately obtuse.

If you recall the discussion we had about the “fear” and “exodus” article, my view was that there was no such fear and it was an invention of the GP. Go back and read it if you cannot recall.

The UK know what we do. Firms here routinely provide HMRC with all sorts of information about UK resident clients. You seem to think that the use of offshore jurisdictions is underhand or needs to involve hiding from the onshore jurisdictions. On the contrary, it is out in the open and is structured so that the asset or income is deemed to “exist” here rather than in the UK (it is UK tax rules which deem this, of course). As soon as it exists in the UK it gets taxed. Same as for other countries. No need to hide since it falls outside the UK jurisdiction.

Your penultimate paragraph shows that you have no idea what caused the credit crunch. The spurious balance sheets were in the US, London, etc, not offshore . You do not need an offshore jurisdiction for a Madoff fraud.

As for the £15T that you quote as gospel, I am sure that you realise that the reason for the credit crunch was that certain parts of the global finance industry were based on virtual profits and assets. No-one has ended up with £15T. As usual you are making things up because they sound good to you.

Report abuse

105

Arnald

David
Firstly, I have never compared Guernsey OFC to anywhere else. In fact I have repeated the fact that we are ‘well regulated’, within the terms and standards agreed by self determination.

But it’s not me, as mad ol’ Arnald, making these claims. I could not have thought of the concept, other than in social equality/dark matter references. It’s people who plainly know what they’re talking about who are congealing a coherent argument.

I agree, actually, with the “a bit rich” argument. I agree with the accusations of hypocrisy. I have never supported, and so would never vote for, any party that has done so much ‘collateral’ damage in the name of progress.

The City and the whole parasitical ideology is a monster. Guernsey were opportunists. No shame there, then, as nobody was looking or if they were, oblivious to long term causality logic. And nobody was quick enough to analyse global trends, or efficiency. But that’s me being generous. There is no reason to believe that conversation preceded ‘opportunism’ or ‘luck’ along the lines of “if you do this, then etc etc”. Who knows what those chaps with correct greeting techniques get up to in our name?

What are we talking about again?

Ah yes. Why doesn’t someone just explain to the likes of the US, EU, Africa etc and all the charities, religions and academics who are bandwaggoning this fantasy, what it is that we do? I’d do it for an easy life. We pay GuernseyFinance distortive wages to dispel these myths don’t we?

TL

So because you say one thing, it’s true.

so why this

http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/services/tax_investigations.html

Surely with such ‘knowing what we do’ the HMRC wouldn’t need to be compromised by these scams touting for any of that murky business – happily ever after.

Oh. They’re not scams. Because why be investigated if the HMRC know what’s happening already.

So there’s no “fear” of “exodus”, no “secrecy”, no non-commercial ‘trading’, no off balance sheet treatments, no legally disconnected instruments performing tax efficiency functions, or transfer pricing ‘tweaks’, or mates lending to mates ad infinitum creating virtual assets which are then used as leverage on the debt to be saddled eventually in the real economy factories of real goods needed for real jobs and real life?

Why didn’t you say so in the first place!?

Go on. Get us off that filthy list.
Send a quick mail. That’ll sort it.
Well?

That’s what I mean. Your saying we’re transparent, yet PwC are offering advice on how not to be quite so realistically transparent.

There’s no wonder I’m confused.

Report abuse

107

Arnald

David
It’s the curse of insularity.
Causality Detachment.

Report abuse