Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Da Boss wrote: That's pretty ridiculous but I guess it is state controlled. Still, does the credibility of the paper no good.
Even more than most news channels, it has always been a mistake to read things into what RT doesn't say. If they say something it's probably the truth (unlike Fox News, who are infamous for fabricating evidence to support their agenda), but they are perfectly happy to ignore the elephant in the room.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
It's long been discussed that Putin has many millions hidden away with various people and businesses to hide his assets.
Apparently the PM of Iceland is up to his neck in this, there must be quite a few people in governments all around the world with money in these 'arrangements'.
The article I read had mostly Russian and South American people listed. I'm wondering how many and which people from the USA are going to start having their names popping up.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im curious if Donald Trump or Hillary Clintons name is going to pop up in the docs. It would be *wonderful*.
I don't think Donald Trump's name is going to come up. Trump's an egotist, and I honestly think that is his primary motivation. What's the point in hiding his wealth in some Panama shell company, if he can't plaster his name on it and use it as evidence of how much of an awesome businessman he is?
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Just to be clear, any person named in these papers can't be assumed to be doing something illegal. There is nothing illegal in setting up shell companies or even in moving money to tax havens. And in some cases there are even legitimate uses for shell companies, but it's just that in many cases they are used to conceal illegal activities, such as moving money to tax havens that can't legally be moved without being taxed first.
So there'll be a week or so of fun naming names and the like, but the real meaningful stuff to come out of this, penalty taxes and possible jail time, will take years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 03:32:47
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: There is nothing illegal in setting up shell companies or even in moving money to tax havens.
No, but if you're a politician who's touting an anti-corruption or trying to convince people of tax increases, having your name appear could sink your career.
sebster wrote: Just to be clear, any person named in these papers can't be assumed to be doing something illegal. There is nothing illegal in setting up shell companies or even in moving money to tax havens. And in some cases there are even legitimate uses for shell companies...
That is true. I think it's changed since then, but at first it was impossible to run a Kickstarter if you weren't based in the US, so a few manufacturers set up US-based shell companies to qualify.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
sebster wrote: There is nothing illegal in setting up shell companies or even in moving money to tax havens.
No, but if you're a politician who's touting an anti-corruption or trying to convince people of tax increases, having your name appear could sink your career.
Aye, like that Icelandic Prime Minister. His tax haven company had large investments in the Icelandic banks that went down a few years back and tried all it could to get the money out. At the same time the guy got elected PM, largely because he wanted to be tough on the banks. He had secret investments and ran on forcing the failed banks to pay out as much as they could. Looks good. ;-)
Breotan wrote: No, but if you're a politician who's touting an anti-corruption or trying to convince people of tax increases, having your name appear could sink your career.
It's likely to sink a lot of politicians, whether they're in favour of greater taxes or not. But outside of politicians, mud won't be enough, there will have to be substance to each claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote: That is true. I think it's changed since then, but at first it was impossible to run a Kickstarter if you weren't based in the US, so a few manufacturers set up US-based shell companies to qualify.
Yeah. And while in most cases it's unlikely that Mossack Fonseca are doing that kind of work, you never know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 05:26:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats how it works, like how none of the American papers mention the 441 American clients the company had and slap Putin and Assad on every frontpage
That is incorrect. From the sound of it, they're saving the Americans for the next round of names.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
I have to ask how did these papers leak in the first place and why? Also 11 million documents?! Holy crap that's a ton. It's definitely not something you can read in one sitting so much as have like 1,000 people read it over and see what you can get out of it. We may need a pretty big team of people to figure out all of this. This is one of the most insane information leaks in a while. Big news indeed.
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats how it works, like how none of the American papers mention the 441 American clients the company had and slap Putin and Assad on every frontpage
That is incorrect. From the sound of it, they're saving the Americans for the next round of names.
It might become incorrect in the future, but I have yet to see any big American names being implicated.
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats how it works, like how none of the American papers mention the 441 American clients the company had and slap Putin and Assad on every frontpage
That is incorrect. From the sound of it, they're saving the Americans for the next round of names.
It might become incorrect in the future, but I have yet to see any big American names being implicated.
Why have the climax in the beginning? There's no suspense then and everybody would just leave. Would make sense they can keep audiences reading their news longer that way.
Also on the subject of 11 million papers you may need a super computer or more than a few working at it to figure out all this mess and what can be gathered. Seriously it's like reading a code of DNA. Speaking of which how long do you think these 11 million documents would take for one person to read at normal reading speed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 09:53:10
Obviously these documents are in digital format, which means they are searchable, however it isn't just enough to highlight the (speculation: 231 mentions of Politician X) because having located them you have to read the documents and see how they string out into a rational narrative.
That will take some time.
However every country in the world will be interested in the names of their own people, so the work will be shared out.
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats how it works, like how none of the American papers mention the 441 American clients the company had and slap Putin and Assad on every frontpage
That is incorrect. From the sound of it, they're saving the Americans for the next round of names.
It might become incorrect in the future, but I have yet to see any big American names being implicated.
A German journalist tweeted something to the effect of "Just wait and see what's coming..." So American papers aren't not mentioning American clients to protect them, they're not mentioning American clients because they haven't been told who they are yet.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats how it works, like how none of the American papers mention the 441 American clients the company had and slap Putin and Assad on every frontpage
That is incorrect. From the sound of it, they're saving the Americans for the next round of names.
It might become incorrect in the future, but I have yet to see any big American names being implicated.
A German journalist tweeted something to the effect of "Just wait and see what's coming..." So American papers aren't not mentioning American clients to protect them, they're not mentioning American clients because they haven't been told who they are yet.
Seems you draw big conclusions from a statement that could mean anything, but hopefully you are right!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 10:17:38
.
