Panama Papers reaction

[Draz]

Someone hacked a law firm in Panama that specialized it setting up "shell companies." Or in another version, a ex-girlfriend of one of the bank's partners was unhappy with the way the relationship ended and stole the law firm's database.

Shell companies are just like shells, they are empty companies that just hold assets for another company. Panama (and the British Virgin Island and the Cayman Island and probably Luxembourg) allow you to basically hide your identity and hide your money. This law firm basically specialized in setting up and selling these companies.

If you're the head of a country and you stole a billion dollars from your country, where do you put it? Well putting it your own country might not be a good idea, because if you have to flee your country or if you get overthrown, it's not going to be worth much. So a shell company in Panama seems pretty good.

Let's say you're a drug dealer and you have a billion dollars, but you can be seen to have a billion dollars because it advertises that you are a drug kingpin and you need to hide it. Or you need to find a way to get your money from America back to Columbia where you can spend it. A shell company in Panama might be helpful. Or a half a dozen of them, so you can launder your money, so it comes back nice and clean and spendable.


Or let's say you're the head of an intelligence agency in a democratic republic, possibly the central agency. And you have a bunch of work you need done, in say Yemen. You're not going to do work yourself, so you need money to hire a bunch of guys. Also you would prefer that the work stay quiet, so you don't want to be writing checks from your government's Treasury, so you set up something like DRZ Associates and then you can pay them from that account.

Or perhaps you just rich and you don't want to pay your local taxes.



Here's some explainers
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/co...toons-game-and

[FillJackson]

That said, having a shell company does mean you have done anything illegal.

There are legitimate reasons for some shell companies.

[fiddy]

Do you understand the difference between your question and the statement that he has been named? And that that statement is false.


Also as I noted above the person who leaked these files made the journalists agree to a certain publication schedule. The German newspaper that did the first story has indicated stories focusing on Americans would be forthcoming.

Suuuuuuure. Thats why on day one, when the story broke out, the guardian focused on Putin and not Cameron. Until the so called "journalist" dont release the full leak to the public, i wont regret the whole issue as nothing but an organized attack.

[FillJackson]

Suuuuuuure. Thats why on day one, when the story broke out, the guardian focused on Putin and not Cameron. Until the so called "journalist" dont release the full leak to the public, i wont regret the whole issue as nothing but an organized attack.

Why are you changing the goalposts to Cameron.

What does that have to do with my statement that John Podesta has not been named in this leak?

[fiddy]

Why are you changing the goalposts to Cameron.

What does that have to do with my statement that John Podesta has not been named in this leak?

Just stating the obvious about the Guardian, they were more concerned with the evil russians, rather their own PM Not named does not mean that he's not there, there is no way to be sure whats on the database until it is released to the public in full. Washington-based ICIJ is responsible for coordination of the whole leak, and we're supposed to believe that there are not protected individuals or corporations there? Get for real, bruh

[FillJackson]

Some Russians in Moscow called the NY Times and pretended to be the Ukrainian President and gave a hoax interview.

A conference call with the editorial board was set up on Monday. The complainer’s comments were so suspect that the Times participants, including some newsroom journalists listening in, declined to publish an article on the matter, but instead began to investigate.

On Wednesday, however, edited audio of the call was mysteriously posted on YouTube, and the Times participants found themselves caught up in an apparent propaganda war between Russia, which is backing separatist forces in Ukraine, and Ukraine’s government.

The call, said Carol Giacomo, an editorial writer, was odd “because the more we got into it, the more we had questions.”

“The guy who was supposedly Poroshenko was in the background, and we couldn’t hear him very clearly, and the translator’s voice was dominant,” she said.

The translator told the journalists that the president, who has been identified as an account holder in the Panama Papers revelations about offshore accounts, had $500 million stashed in them.

The translator also quoted the voice identified as Mr. Poroshenko’s as saying he did not want to return the money to his country, in part because he did not want to pay taxes on it.

That assertion was so outlandish, said Michael Slackman, international managing editor for The Times, that it helped confirm suspicions about the veracity of their interview.

The people on the Ukraine end of the phone call spoke in Russian — unusual for senior Ukrainian officials. The signature on the letter, it turned out, was identical to a Google image result for Mr. Poroshenko’s signature. The email address for his press officer was a Gmail account. Further, Mr. Poroshenko speaks fluent English and regularly conducts interviews with foreign journalists in that language.

When a Times journalist, Andrew E. Kramer, called the press office telephone number provided on the email, the man who answered, who identified himself as Sergei Panfilov, spoke Russian with a pronounced Moscow accent.

[fiddy]

breaking news

[Dresta]

Oh yeah, are we really supposed to believe Poroshenko isn't a corrupt piece of shit now? That he wasn't brought to power through illegal and unconstitutional means (i.e. an armed putsch), which were aided and encouraged by EU & NATO expansionism?

Ok Kevin.

[LootOP]

Oh yeah, are we really supposed to believe Poroshenko isn't a corrupt piece of shit now? That he wasn't brought to power through illegal and unconstitutional means (i.e. an armed putsch), which were aided and encouraged by EU & NATO expansionism?

Ok Kevin.

Poroshenko is heading a picture perfect example of a fascist regime. It's just dressed up as democracy (like most democracies are fronts). If Ukrain leaders would truely want what's best for their country, the people, the working class etc, they would try and build up their future independent of "treaties" with the EU.