back to article World's mega-rich tax dodge exposed: Meet the HSBC IT bloke at the heart of damning leak

In 2008, HSBC IT exec Hervé Falciani blew the whistle on the huge tax-avoidance maneuvers used by some of the planet's wealthiest people. This week, sensitive documents obtained by the 43-year-old have been published online for the world to see. Falciani has fled across Europe, swerved extradition requests, and, fearing for …

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Holmes

    Missing the big picture.

    Will a raid now be performed on politician's private suites? How about we shut the money-printing ECB with all the employees inside and then we pop it with a few 155mm packages? No? Then the primary problems will remain. And they will blow up in our faces sooner rather than later.

    "Banks such as HSBC have created a system for making themselves rich at the expense of society, by assisting in tax evasion and money laundering,"

    It's a bank, man. That is the only actor in the economy who can legallly do with your money what it damn well pleases - in particular, give to to other people and pretend it didn't. See also: Bank Run.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Missing the big picture.

      >Then the primary problems will remain. And they will blow up in our faces sooner rather than later.

      The problem has already blown up. It isn't complicated at all and doesn't depend on jargon-strewn economic policies and tricks. The problem is that people both individually and through government have been spending more than they earn.

      Keynesian flim-flam tried to hide the fact that this is a bad thing - even saying its a good thing, but the chickens always come home to roost. I missed the point when people forgot the 1970's and decided printing money was a good idea. You can go broke and stop paying for stuff, or you devalue/print money, (which means you can't import) and you keep going internally, paying in worthless money until the internal debt is paid. In the meantime you can't import which means you need to be self-sufficient for that to work.

      GFC? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Massive layoffs but record stock prices? That would be because currency looks worthless. Crazy stock bubble? Any hope is better than no hope of return.

      You'll see a surge in the left-wing but that is probably doomed. In the past, the West made things, which was handy when it came to nationalisation - there was something to redistribute so people didn't really starve. Now, its all imported which means we'll just all be very poor and have to do without.

      I'd expect a surge by the far right too with nationalism on the rise as people look for other people to blame. Governments will look to distract their populations with foreign wars.

      We've seen it before. South Seas stock anyone? How about the early twentieth century and if you look carefully out of your windows now...

      -

      "Neither a borrower nor a lender be;

      For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

      And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."

      -Polonius in Hamlet

      1. TheOtherHobbes

        Re: Missing the big picture.

        >Keynesian flim-flam tried to hide the fact that this is a bad thing

        You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what Keynesianism is, or how well it worked to dig the Western economies out of the post-war slump, or how it was taken out and shot in the 1970s because banks like HSBC and their oh-so-important clients could no longer stomach paying a decent tax contribution to public schools, public universities, public hospitals, and other public infrastructure?

        Do you know who sponsored that nutter Hayek or how he came to be canonised as the saviour of Western capitalism?

        >In the past, the West made things

        The West still makes things. Often they're made out of code and ideas.

        The difference is that the West used to pay people for making things. And people who got paid had money to pay other people.

        Now paying people who make things is no longer fashionable, so all the money that could be circulating in the economy and doing Useful Stuff is sitting and rotting in offshore bank accounts.

        You're not going to blame Keynes for illegal money laundering and tax evasion too, are you?

        1. The Axe

          Re: Missing the big picture.

          And you have no idea what you are talking about either. Keynesianism was not the saviour of the postwar slump. The war created the slump, stop the war and the economies recovered. Keynes has a point that a certain amount of state spending can counter a boom-bust but everyone who is a Keynes disciple seems to think that the state can solve all boom-busts. Keynes said a certain amount of spending can allievate the problem, but it's not a cure. Hayek is just as much a nutter as Keynes. They both have valid points. Thinking one is a god and the other the devil makes you a nutter.

          PS. How does money sitting in an offshore bank account rot? Does the bank just sit on it and do nothing. Or does it loan money out to entrepeneurs and invest in business in order to get a return and pay an interest on the money banked in them?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Missing the big picture.

            "Stopping the war" is easier to say than to achieve. It could have been a bit difficult to say Nazis "hey, let's stop the war, please". Chamberlain tried, and the results were not good...

            Offshore banks are often just a dead end where you can store a lot of money but you can't easily move elsewhere (unless using other escamotages). What investor a bank in a small island in the Carribeans or Pacific could lend money to? Also, those kind of accounts can be very "volatile", today the money are there, tomorrow they could be somewhere else...

            Why Apple, Google & C. are asking the US government a tax reduction to move those money back to US? Because if they do without them, they would have to pay the taxes they didn't want to pay when they stored the money in those tax havens - just, as long as the money is there, they can't take much advantage of them (pay dividends, buy backs, etc...)

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Missing the big picture.

        "I missed the point when people forgot the 1970's and decided printing money was a good idea"

        Stagflation happened in the face of tightening money supplies. The UK govt in particular spent a lot of effort pulling money out of circulation only to see inflation keep climbing.

        Quantative easing looks like it might trigger deflation.

        Money is a perverse thing. What counts more than availability is confidence in it. When the roman empire finally imploded, the final straw was over coinage. Within 18 months noone across the empire would take roman coins - and that was despite them being solid silver.

        On the track of the story itself, I know several people in the UK who've been caught in the net and the reaction is amazingly selfish, as you'd expect from people caught systemaically tax evading. I can't see any country extraditing Herve to Switzerland, but some of these folk are pissed off enough that they might try kidnapping him there as revenge.

    2. nijam Silver badge

      Re: Missing the big picture.

      I think you meant:

      It's a government, man. That is the only actor in the economy who can legallly do with your money what it damn well pleases - in particular, give to to other people...

  2. Winkypop Silver badge
    Unhappy

    I'm way too poor to avoid tax

    It's illegal, for me.

    1. LucreLout

      Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax

      I'm way too poor to avoid tax

      It's illegal, for me.

      Well, you're wrong about that. All avoidance is legal, it's only evasion that is not. From what I've read of the HSBC thing, that smells like evasion, but I'd need to see the paperwork.

      Got a pension (public sector or defined contribution), an ISA, or use your tax free earnings allowance? That's all tax avoidance.

      Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance by definition is not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

        I think you are confusing avoidance with allowance?

        1. d3vy

          Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

          @ac

          No he is not confusing it, tax avoidance is avoiding tax, your earnings are declared but your tax liability is reduced, hmrc know that my gross income is x and I should be taxed x*.40 but because there are plenty of LEGAL ways to avoid tax they they actually tax me ((x-y)*.40) where y is my pension, cycle to work bike, student loan payment etc.

          Evasion would be me earning 40k and declaring 20k pocketing the 30k difference.

          1. Roj Blake Silver badge

            Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

            "Evasion would be me earning 40k and declaring 20k pocketing the 30k difference."

            With that sort of mathematical wizardry, have you considered a career in banking?

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

              @Roy Blake.

              Sounds like a perfect accountant to me. I've never been able to understand how accountants work out good will and such like in business accounts. Seems to be a means of adjusting profit up or down according to what you want the accounts to say. This sort of maths seems pretty par for the course with accountants.

            2. d3vy

              Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

              "With that sort of mathematical wizardry, have you considered a career in banking?"

              Im going to blame my phone keyboard for being too small.. failing that Ill just claim that I went to the enron school of accounting. :)

          2. Mad Mike

            Re: I'm way too poor to avoid tax @LucreLout

            @d3vy.

            'No he is not confusing it, tax avoidance is avoiding tax, your earnings are declared but your tax liability is reduced, hmrc know that my gross income is x and I should be taxed x*.40 but because there are plenty of LEGAL ways to avoid tax they they actually tax me ((x-y)*.40) where y is my pension, cycle to work bike, student loan payment etc.

            Evasion would be me earning 40k and declaring 20k pocketing the 30k difference.'

            In Britain at least, this is simply not true anymore. There are ways of avoiding tax that are perfectly legal in every way except being a construct whose sole reason is avoiding tax. This was the legislation change (which is completely open ended and open to interpretation) that the coalition have put into place. Basically, it says that if the government/HMRC approve of it, it's OK, but otherwise it isn't. The new law says that any financial arrangement created solely to avoid (note the word avoid, not evade) tax is now classed as evasion. So, what about an ISA? The sole reason for an ISAs existence is to avoid income tax on the interest. Therefore, according to the new law, they are actually illegal. Anyone know of someone prosecuted for it? No. Why? Because it's approved of by the government/HMRC.

            The new law is a completely opened ended farce, which is open to huge amounts of abuse. An accountants job is (in part) to minimise your tax liability, but with a law like that, it is very difficult to work out what is, and what is not legal. There is no longer a line, but a blurry non-mans land.

  3. Sampler

    So the canned statement from HSBC is pretty much "Yarp - we got caught and would've continued if we didn't, actually, we're not saying we aren't continuing".

    $120b - it should be held frozen whilst investigations proceed, that'll teach 'em, especially as such a case could last decades..

    Never going to happen.

    1. The Axe

      More like the canned statement is saying that HSBC Switzerland followed Swiss law but now that countries are making agreements to cut back on secrecy Switzerland is changing its laws and HSBC Switzerland is changing too. HSBC Switzerland is not the same company as HSBC England. They might be managed by the same overarching group, but they have to follow local laws. If you say otherwise then Chinese companies might as well setup here and follow Chinese law when employing staff with Chinese H&S regs etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "bank secrecy" != "allowing known illegal activities, and actively cooperating with them"

        You may have a perfectly legal secret bank account - money are from legal activities and you paid taxes. Maybe you just have greedy relatives and want to keep something away from their hungry fingers...

        Or you can use those hard to track accounts to sustain illegal activities. From what is known, it's pretty clear that HSBC Switzerland very well knew it was cooperating in illegal activities and actively helped "customers" to achieve their unlawful aims - even for the Swiss law....

        1. Chris Miller

          it's pretty clear that HSBC Switzerland very well knew it was cooperating in illegal activities

          for "very well knew" read "should have known, had they wanted to find out". "Don't ask; don't tell" has been the motto of Swiss banking for centuries.

      2. Richard Taylor 2

        I don't believe anything in Swiss law makes it compulsory to aggressively push tax evasion services and hide money from taxation authorities around the world. Now the spirit of Swiss laws is another thing.

        1. Mad Mike

          @Richard Taylor 2

          'I don't believe anything in Swiss law makes it compulsory to aggressively push tax evasion services and hide money from taxation authorities around the world. Now the spirit of Swiss laws is another thing.'

          I think you're asking the wrong question. It should be; is there anything in Swiss law that makes it illegal to aggressively push tax evasion services (where it happens in another country)'? Now, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I'd be pretty certain it isn't even illegal if the evasion occurs in Switzerland, as I suspect the law makes the person giving the return the perpetrator rather than their bank. However, that is irrelevant.

          Therefore, in Switzerland, HSBC have not broken any laws. The only person who has broken any laws is the man who stole all the data!! Don't forget that it isn't illegal to incite someone to commit most offences (some like riot are). Even in the UK, I could incite you to file a false tax return, but I wouldn't be committing an offence as it is actually you (the filer) who has committed the offence, as the tax return itself states!! Indeed, one of the jokes about accountants is that when they make a mistake, the person whose finances they've messed up is found guilty and he has to seek redress from the accountant under civil negligence laws........

  4. Turtle

    Appropriate

    "HSBC has no record of [Falciani] ever escalating any concerns to his line management, or using the whistleblowing hotline that was in place at the time of the [data] theft,"

    There was no need to report his concerns to management. He needed to go right to the appropriate legal authorities.

    One of the few things the ex-Communist Bloc countries did right, and that we need to do too, was to execute people for large-scale financial crime.

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re: Appropriate

      "There was no need to report his concerns to management. He needed to go right to the appropriate legal authorities."

      Actually, there is. As far as I can see, HSBC didn't break any Swiss laws. And even if it did, he would have first needed to raise his concerns with management, if he wanted to avoid legal troubles in Switzerland. Unless a whistle-blower really tried to report an issue internally, it would look rather bad in front of the court and Swiss judges would probably regard it as breach of trading secrecy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Appropriate

        Sure, even Snowden shoud have reported his concerns to NSA management... nor that "legal authorities" would have been helpful here too....

        Sometimes you know all you could do is talk to journalists or legal authorities... otherwise you would just get fired and with nothing in your hands to help yourself.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Appropriate

          Sometimes you know all you could do is talk to journalists or legal authorities... otherwise you would just get fired and with nothing in your hands to help yourself.

          Had he done that you may have a point. Instead what he sought to do was hawk the loot to the highest bidder. That's just plain theft right there.

          ETA: As I mentioned in another post, the defining difference is that as far as I'm aware Snowden made absolutely no effort to profit from his actions. That places him in a category well above this petty thief.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Appropriate

            Snowden, on the other hand, ended up to seek asylum in countries very well know for performing the very same actions he accused NSA of, and with far worse punishment for whistleblowers and dissidents. Nor China nor Russia are good example of countries respectful of human rights and privacy.

            Both blown up their lives, when you decide to do it you have to find a way to go on....

    2. Mark 85

      Re: Appropriate

      Given the nature of this, denial by the bank would be expected. To admit that he followed procedure would be to admit that their guilt in this which would be bad for the bank.

      Also, there's people involved who are going be royally pissed to have to pay back taxes (people not necessarily of good character), he probably would have disappeared if he had gone through the channels.

    3. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: Appropriate

      " has no record of [Falciani] ever escalating any concerns to his line management"

      Well, HSBC management were the ones enabling the tax fraud, so what would he gain from escalating to them? Yes, it was not technically illegal in Switzerland but surely HSBC knew it was aiding it's clients to evade tax illegally in their home countries.

    4. LucreLout

      Re: Appropriate

      There was no need to report his concerns to management

      Professionalism requires that he follow the internal process first. It also requires that he not steal the client data. People like this give the industry a very bad name.

      People use Twitter, Google, and Facebook to break the law every day. Would you feel it right and proper for someone in their IT department to arbitrarily decide, based upon zero legal expertise within your jursidiction, that you might be one of them, and steal all of your data and hawk it around the world?

      He wasn't trying to prevent tax evasion, he was trying to profit from data theft. No better or worse than the card scammers and id fraudsters.

      He needed to go right to the appropriate legal authorities.

      If, after following the internal procedures, he felt the law was being broken, then yes, he should have gone to the authorities, but that does not excuse, justify, or even require that he steal the client data. The authorities can legally obtain it with a warrant.

      execute people for large-scale financial crime

      I hear ya... but first lets have the death penalty for murder, rape, and noncing... crimes that actually do real world harm, before we get to worrying about money. Or, you could take the civilised view that having the state murder people doesn't set the best of examples to society.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Appropriate

        "People like this give the industry a very bad name."

        No, the industry gives itself a bad name. They may like to dance along the avoidance/evasion line, but to everyone else, it's just evasion.

        And yes, normally he should have used internal channels, but presumably he felt that the authorities would be unable to obtain the data with a warrant, because it would either be hidden, or deleted if such a warrant was presented. A warrant is only of use if the person/entity on the receiving end feels like obeying the law.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Appropriate

          "People like this give the industry a very bad name."

          No, the industry gives itself a bad name.

          I was referring to the IT industry. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

          They may like to dance along the avoidance/evasion line, but to everyone else, it's just evasion.

          The legal/illegal line you mean? It is an important distinction.

          presumably he felt that the authorities would be unable to obtain the data with a warrant, because it would either be hidden, or deleted if such a warrant was presented

          Not so. He would simply have cached his loot internally instead of externally, thus not violating anyones privacy. He may well turn out to be wrong and some of those whose details he has leaked may have complied fully with the law.

          A warrant is only of use if the person/entity on the receiving end feels like obeying the law.

          If he had enough access to the data to copy it externally he could have just as easily hidden an internal copy and given the location to law enforcement.

          Your reasonong is just an excuse because you dislike tax avoidance. This was an invasion of privacy of the individuals about whom he stole the data. That's all it is. There's zero moral or legal justification for his actions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Appropriate

            "I was referring to the IT industry. Sorry if that wasn't clear."

            No it's not a bad name. I'm happy this is happening. Maybe banks (and other companies) eventually will learn who actually holds the safe keys today. And stop thinking about IT people as somebody not at the same level of the "finance" ones....

            Here in Italy banks create separate companies to hire and manage their IT people using the "metal and mechanical" workers contracts, the least expensive one for a company (historically widely used because Olivetti was such a company when it made typewriters...), instead of the vastly more appealing (for the employee, of course), bank workers one. It's good they understand what a disgruntled employee can lead to....

            1. LucreLout

              Re: Appropriate

              Maybe banks (and other companies) eventually will learn who actually holds the safe keys

              That would be genuinely brilliant were it to happen, but sadly, I can't envisage a time when it will come to pass. This, absolutely will not bring forth that day.

              Here in Italy banks create separate companies to hire and manage their IT people using the "metal and mechanical" workers contracts

              Here in the UK they just outsource us all to India.

              My professionalism is mine because it is immutable. The employer can't change it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Appropriate

                "My professionalism is mine because it is immutable"

                Not all people are equal. And sometimes someone breaks, for many different reasons. Keeping the people who actually run your business and may have a so deep access to sensitive information down the ladder, or even outsource them, can result very risky...

      2. James Micallef Silver badge

        Re: Appropriate

        "you could take the civilised view that having the state murder people doesn't set the best of examples to society."

        I do take that view, I also take the view that embezzling billions can destroy lives as much as aggravated assault, rape and even murder. So fraudulent city types caught with their hands in the till should be getting life without parole in max-security, not 20 years in min-security reduced to 10 on appeal and out on parole after 3

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Appropriate

          I also take the view that embezzling billions can destroy lives as much as aggravated assault, rape and even murder.

          Then your view is badly out of whack with reality and you should see someone about it. Seriously.

          Your definition of tax avoidance, evasion, and embezzlement are wildly inaccurate too.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: Appropriate

            @LucreLout - Stealing someone's life savings is a very bad crime and is certainly extremely traumatic for the victim. When it's perpetrated by people in a position of trust, it's even worse. Destroying someone's life is destroying someone's life, and just because pain,anguish and fear are mental rather than physical does not make them any less traumatic.

            In the individual case, certainly rape and murder are far worse than simple robbery, which is why these crimes carry life sentences (or capital punishment) for a single offense. In the case of financial fraud however, perpetrators are stealing the life savings of thousands of people at a time, so the sentencing should to be equivalent to a murder sentence.

            "Your definition of tax avoidance, evasion, and embezzlement are wildly inaccurate too."

            Regarding this,I was responding to a post that was talking generally about serious financial crimes, NOT specifically the tax evasion mentioned in the article, hence my use of 'embezzle'. And what the clients of HSBC Switzerland were doing was evasion, not avoidance (ie illegal in their own home countries).

            1. LucreLout

              Re: Appropriate

              Stealing someone's life savings is a very bad crime and is certainly extremely traumatic for the victim. When it's perpetrated by people in a position of trust, it's even worse

              I agree completely. Thing is though, that taxes are levied upon money earned and owned by the target of that taxation. It is not stolen from others. This tax, were it definitively due, would not make a single penny difference to your tax rate: the scale of waste is unimaginable and this but a drop in that ocean.

              Outright loss of my assets would be distressing, and I'm too old now to recover the lost ground. I'll take that everytime rather than harm come to my family.... so even though your point about harm is relevant, it is not of the same scale. Not even remotely. Hopefully you already know that.

            2. Squander Two

              The innocent bystanders

              > And what the clients of HSBC Switzerland were doing was evasion, not avoidance (ie illegal in their own home countries).

              The clients of HSBC Switzerland? What, all of them? Well, no: in the UK's case, there were 3600 leaked files, of which only 1000 were even investigated, as the remainder, according to HMRC, had no case to answer. So that's at least 2600 innocent people whose private financial records were illegally leaked by an insider at the bank.

              Very easy to be blase about those innocent people when there's no chance of your being one of them. But here's a question for all those who think the guy's a hero. Would you be happy for an institution which held some of your records -- your bank, say, or your local GP -- to leak your records if it led to HMRC being able to claim some back-taxes? Even if they were only catching approximately one miscreant for every four records leaked? That's OK, is it? You wouldn't complain about the data breach? Because it seems like only yesterday people round here were having conniptions at the idea that their private data might be used in a controlled and audited manner in order to help study disease.

        2. TitterYeNot

          Re: Appropriate

          "So fraudulent city types caught with their hands in the till should be getting life without parole in max-security, not 20 years in min-security reduced to 10 on appeal and out on parole after 3"

          That's just crazy talk! Haven't you heard? It's only the little people who pay taxes or go to prison for as long as they deserve, don't you know...

          And as for Switzerland, can't we just build a bloody great wall around the place and not take it down till they stop facilitating this sort of crap right under our noses?

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Appropriate

            "And as for Switzerland, can't we just build a bloody great wall around the place and not take it down till they stop facilitating this sort of crap right under our noses?"

            Given how skilled they are at tunnels, I doubt they could be contained by a wall.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Appropriate

        It looks to me that a citizen reporting a crime to the authorities in charge to deal with that crime is a perfectly right option. In no way a commercial company has the authority, nor the right, to decide what is a crime or not, and if to disclose it to authorities or not. Employees are citizens first, and only then employees, nor they are a property of the company they work for. The first responsibility of a citizen is towards the Law - and the rights of his or her fellow citizens (including that of payinf fair taxes even it you can't hide money away), and only after that his or her company.

        In this situation he would have not been reporting something which was damaging the company, something any company would be very happy to know (and give a nice recompense for), but of course he was reporting something that the company was taking a big advantage from, and his very report would have damaged the company badly if acted upon. Sure, maybe he would have obtained a recompense to stay silent and keep on business as usual... but it doesn't look that was he was looking for. Or he could have obtained a far nastier return...

      4. John Gamble
        Stop

        Re: Appropriate

        "He wasn't trying to prevent tax evasion, he was trying to profit from data theft."

        Cite please? The only ones claiming that are the Swiss authorities, who seem to be working for HSBC in this matter. The other affected European governments seem to have different opinions.

        1. Squander Two

          Re: Appropriate

          > The only ones claiming that are the Swiss authorities, who seem to be working for HSBC in this matter.

          Since HSBC did not break any Swiss laws, the Swiss authorities are supposed to work for them in this matter. That's their job. In much the same way as, if your house is burgled, the British authorities are supposed to help you and to go after the burglar.

          I realise a lot of people round here don't like Swiss law. But it is still the law in Switzerland. Demanding that Swiss authorities prosecute Swiss people and Swiss companies for things that are not illegal in Switzerland but that some Londoners dislike is ridiculous. And the only reason to suppose that we can foist our laws on the Swiss but they can't foist their laws on us is sheer imperialist colonialism.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: Appropriate

            " Demanding that Swiss authorities prosecute Swiss people and Swiss companies for things that are not illegal in Switzerland"

            Well there actually have been repercussions in Switzerland, for example US treats banks as multinational entities and if their Swiss branches were found to have been hiding US-taxable assets from Uncle Sam, they slapped a few mega-fines (10 or 11-digit) on the bank. Banks who wish to operate globally can't very well claim that they don't know what their Swiss subsidiary is up to... and in fact while officially Swiss still have their banking secrecy, there are now various bilateral agreements that allow some data sharing with foreign tax authorities.

            So this HSBC guy HAS been able to kick off some pretty major change,hats off

            1. Squander Two

              Re: Appropriate

              > Banks who wish to operate globally can't very well claim that they don't know what their Swiss subsidiary is up to

              Can they claim that their Swiss subsidiary has to obey Swiss law?

              > US treats banks as multinational entities and if their Swiss branches were found to have been hiding US-taxable assets from Uncle Sam, they slapped a few mega-fines (10 or 11-digit) on the bank.

              The withholding tax under the FATCA legislation, yes -- which is frankly a disgusting extraterritorial power-grab by the White House -- and it should be a national disgrace in the UK that our government cooperated with it. It seems a tad less noble when you consider that the US has international income tax and so those "US-taxable assets" include things like Boris Johnson's house sale. Or that poor disabled guy in Canada whose parents ran a charity drive to raise money for his care and Uncle Sam declared that the money raised was his, despite the kid not being, in any reasonable sense, American.

              Not sure why you bring it up, mind, as HSBC's excellent response to FATCA was to withdraw all their business from the US rather than agree to fuck their customers. Good for them. So the FATCA "withholding tax" cannot be apllied to them.

  5. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Swiss banking industry

    >In the past, the Swiss private banking industry operated very differently to the way it does today.

    They no longer have a box on the deposit slip for "Gold Teeth"?

  6. Mystic Megabyte
    Stop

    Profit?

    So where is the profit on the $120bn? Did HSBC head office see it and think "blimey!, that Swiss branch is doing well", or did it get stashed into yet another Swiss "private" account.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thank you Herve...

    ...but i feel that the corruption which has permeated the Westminster bubble is far too great for anyone involved to ever do prison time for this......we are ruled by gangsters:(

    1. Squander Two

      Re: Thank you Herve...

      The law comes down pretty hard on tax evaders, actually, and they do end up in prison if they don't pay HMRC's bill. If you're referring to HSBC staff, though, there is that pesky legal technicality that you're ideally not supposed to do prison time unless you've broken the law.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Presumably that would include Bernie Ecclestones *alleged* £2Bn in unpaid tax.

    Which IIRC the HMRC took about £11m off him.

    IE about 0.5 % of the total.

    Nice deal if you can get it (and of course if you need, as perhaps he really doesn't own that much m'lord).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Presumably that would include Bernie Ecclestones *alleged* £2Bn in unpaid tax.

      Not sure that story has fully played out yet - the funniest part of tax evasion by using your wife is the havoc it creates when you dally with other girlies and she divorces you. Oops :)

      1. Valeyard

        Re: Presumably that would include Bernie Ecclestones *alleged* £2Bn in unpaid tax.

        I reckon the divorce is PART of the tax evasion, i.e. if they're divorced it isn't his anymore.. yet he still seems to be able to spend it suspiciously enough

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Presumably that would include Bernie Ecclestones *alleged* £2Bn in unpaid tax.

          No - AFAIK she needs to pay him his own money as alimony, which must be pretty funny if you're the wronged party. That's like giving him a kick in the gonads every single month. Couldn't happen to a nicer person, really.

  9. LucreLout

    Falciani is a petty criminal, nothing more; stealing from his employer and trying to profit by selling his stolen goods. He's just another data thief, no better or worse than any other. Trying to wrap it up in a bow and call it "preventing tax evasion" is missing the point: he had no requirement to sell the data to outside parties, or even move it beyond his corporate firewall. Just another thief trying to excuse his greed.

    The data Snowden stole would have been of far greater value, but I've not read a single report of his trying to sell it (and that would have been real easy for the NSA to set up). I might disagree with his actions, but I certainly wouldn't call into question his belief that he was doing the right thing, and I'd certainly not suggest he profitted from it personally.

  10. jzlondon

    Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

    1. You're Swiss.

    or 2. You live in Switzerland.

    Am I missing any others?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

      3. You do business in Switzerland.

      1. Groaning Ninny

        Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

        And the business in Switzerland is that you use a Swiss bank account. Sorted.

      2. kraut

        Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

        4. Your savings are in a currency rapidly losing value (Rubel, Drachma, Euro) and you'd like to protect them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

          4. Your savings are in a currency rapidly losing value (Rubel, Drachma, Euro) and you'd like to protect them.

          You forgot to mention US dollars. That currency is 100% dependent on the too big to fail concept - the only reason that bubble doesn't burst is because it would tear everything else down with it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

      - You don't trust the competence of the banks in your own country (Greece, Italy, Cyprus,...)

      - You don't trust the currency of your own country (Euro, Rouble,...)

      I wish that I, living in the (P)eurozone, had had my savings in a Swiss bank last month

      1. e^iπ+1=0

        Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

        'I wish that I, living in the (P)eurozone, had had my savings in a Swiss bank last month'

        The value of my euro-denominated assets in my Swiss account declined. I would surmise that location of bank doesn't help. However, just imagine how much money I could have made if I'd had advanced warning of the removal of the upper limit of the Swissy against the Euro ... or the birth of Jesus or Buddha. I'm not a bookie; never mind.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

      Don't put everything in the same basket. There are different types of accounts, and different types of banks. Having a bank account abroad is perfectly legal - as long as the money are legal too, and your local laws allow for moving and keeping money abroad - for many reasons - business, travels, savings etc. etc. Usually, these accounts are tied to a real person or entity - nothing to hide.

      Then there are all those "anonymous" or "secret" accounts, usually hidden under a fantasy name, often moving money through "fake" entities created ad hoc, especially through shady tax havens.

      These are usually used to hide money. Sometimes you may have a good and still legal reason for such kind of account, but more often than not, they are used for illegal activities. With the right help, they can be created and destroyed easily, and help a lot to mask and hide money flows.

    4. e^iπ+1=0

      Re: Many legitimate reasons to hold a Swiss bank account?

      I spent almost 10 years working for a Swiss bank in Switzerland (as a contractor); I needed a Swiss bank account for my day to day existence. Naturally (?) I opened an account with another Swiss bank to process my salary (I didn't trust Swiss banking secrecy at that time, and imagined that half of the office would become intimately aware of my finances were I to bank with the bank I worked at).

      Now, a while down the track, my relationship with my Swiss bank account providor has been gradually detiorating (maybe I'm not rich enough?).

      A couple of years or so ago they sent me some forms for 'my financial advisor' to fill in to certify my wealth as being above some specified amount (maybe 2.5m USD). Without this documentation my account would become restricted, losing certain privileges such as a credit card.

      Unfortunately I didn't have a financial advisor or enough money. I had to forfeit my credit card (that I was paying CHF 100 a year for), and was no longer allowed to buy equities through my account (I wasn't an avid share trader, I held shares in a couple of blue chips to keep my account above the minimum balance requirements, hoping I might beat the 0.001% interest offered on the current account.

      As my finances have dwindled I've sold some of the shares, unfortunately at a small profit. My Swiss bankers expect me to provide them with documents from certified professionals assuring that these profits have been declared to the relevant taxation authority. Obviously the cost of producing said documentation would exceed the small profit, so, due to non compliance my account is now scheduled for closure.

      All the way through this process I've been getting signals from the bank that everything would be much smoother if I could just prove that I had enough money for their documentary requirements.

      Maybe they really would love me long time if I had that few million they're drooling over.

  11. AdrianG

    4. you choose to invest your money in a country where the currency is stable.

    The selling point for investing your money in Switzerland was and still is stability. Many customers from outside of the Eurozone/Americas put their money here, because they don't trust their government at home to manage the economy.

    These idiots at HSBC give all of us a bad name, especially when most of the banks, have been following a 'white money' strategy, and speaking for where I work, have closed many accounts where the Clients did not fulfill the Compliance requirements.

  12. macjules

    In Monaco he had installed computers and software designed to detect fraudulent transactions

    Oh come on. Detecting fraud in Monaco is like shooting dairy cattle with a sniper rifle.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: In Monaco he had installed computers and software designed to detect fraudulent transactions

      No, detecting fraud in Monaco is like shooting dairy cattle with a machine gun and managing to miss all the cows.

    2. Mark 65

      Re: In Monaco he had installed computers and software designed to detect fraudulent transactions

      I'm not sure how much installing of anything the guy did himself given...

      "The data was not relinquished by Falciani voluntarily. Since that time, the French authorities have subsequently shared the data with numerous governments around the world.

      implies he doesn't know what encryption is.

  13. Mad Mike

    Politcally created issue

    Not sure about other countries, but the UK has created this problem all by itself by implementing some very dodgy laws. Originally, tax evasion was illegal and tax avoidance was legal. You could do anything you liked to avoid tax using allowances, companies etc.etc. and it was all perfectly legal, even if its sole purpose was to avoid tax.

    Now, the coalition has implemented legislation that says anything implemented with the sole intention of avoiding tax (note the word avoid), actually becomes tax evasion (again, note the word evasion). So now, financial constructs have to have a reason other than tax avoidance for their existence. Of course, the presence of products such as pensions and ISAs etc., whose sole purpose is to avoid tax and they approve of, doesn't strike them as a little odd. After all, why would you put money into an ISA rather than a normal savings account if it weren't for the tax free nature? So, this law basically makes it evasion to use any financial instrument not approved of by government, which of course, changes with the wind!!

    Not only did they do that, but they also made the law retrospective, a practice that has become more common over the last decade or so, but used to be never done. I believe Tony Blair implemented the first such law. This means that even if the financial construct you used WAS legal at the time, at a later date it can be declared ILLEGAL and you can be fined/prosecuted etc. for using it!!

    As a for instance. Jimmy Carr and his investment antics. The mechanism he used at the time it was created was perfectly LEGAL. Immoral maybe, but legal. It is only this law that has made that type of financial arrangement illegal and because the law allows backdating, it became not just ILLEGAL from that moment on, but since it was created!! Now, I'm not defending what Jimmy Carr did and it may well have been immoral, but there is a big difference between immoral and illegal. After all, can anyone honestly say they have never avoided tax (cash in hand etc.etc.). I suspect almost nobody can claim to be totally free of guilt.

    So, what's the difference? Maybe it's simply down to the level of avoidance? A few quid, that's fine, but thousands (or maybe tens of thousands) and it becomes wrong? I don't know. But financial instruments that were perfectly legal at the time they were created and for many years since are now being declared illegal and people being chased for tax on them. Whilst one can argue about the morality argument, it does seem perverse to find someone guilty of an offense before it even became an offense!!

    1. Tom 7

      Re: Politcally created issue

      Since you raised Jimmy Carr... at the same time it was known that as Carr avoided £2Million Gary Barlow was avoiding £20Million and yet was not being pilloried by press. Surely it cant have been that Barlow was a tory party donor as that would suggest even greater corruption across the board but why the hell did Carr get attacked and Barlow was 'ignored'?

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Politcally created issue

        "Alternate comedian" hides money in complex off shore tax scam = man bites dog = news

        Millionaire rock star doesn't pay tax = dog bites man = not news

      2. Mad Mike

        Re: Politcally created issue

        @Tom 7.

        Jimmy Carr is but one example and there are many, many more. Why one is pilloried and others are not is probably more due to the public perception and newspapers bent. Gary Barlow always has seemed a bit of a 'golden boy', whereas Jimmy Carr has always been a bit near the edge and told jokes in dubious taste etc. Does that make him more of a target? Maybe, maybe not. Does one give to the Tory party and the other not? Don't know.

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Politcally created issue

      >Now, the coalition has implemented legislation that says anything implemented with the sole intention of avoiding tax (note the word avoid), actually becomes tax evasion ...

      Not sure if this really has changed things that much. For decades many financial investment products have been sold with a caveat concerning HMRC approval. Remember the infamous scheme Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow et al used, was initially approved by HMRC, but had it's approval retrospectively removed due to the way it was actually operating. Interestingly, this is something (ie. HMRC withdrawing their approval) that can also happen to Pensions, ISA's, Endowment's and other mainstream tax avoidance products that HMRC approve - I know having had several investments do exactly this over the decades.

      Also the new law doesn't alter the legality of the infamous scheme referred to, because the papers defining the scheme satisfy HMRC's guidance. HMRC will continue to give such schemes provisional approval and watch to confirm that the scheme actually does what it says it will do, in this case invest in film production and generate returns based on this activity. Hence it can be some years before you know whether that high-growth ISA/EIS/Pension etc. investment you made did actually satisfy HMRC or not.

      What the law does do is permit HMRC to more easily reject arrangements and schemes that, whilst using legal constructs, are obviously only intended to avoid UK tax.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Politcally created issue

        @Roland6.

        You're quite right, but confusing different things. In some cases, HMRC was asked to rule on the legality of some financial instrument and gave an opinion on the basis of the information they were given. Now, if this information proves to be false or the instrument isn't run in the manner described, then they can retrospectively withdraw their opinion (and therefore make you very open to legal action) due to the deviation between the two. This has always been the case.

        However, HMRC and the government have to obey the law just as much (said laughingly) as anyone else and therefore can't just make up their minds what is and is not allowed on a whim. There has to be a law that says it isn't allowed. HMRC are merely being asked to interpret the law from their perspective and give an opinion. If you disagree with their opinion, you can still do it and it is up to HMRC to take you to court and get a judge to agree with their opinion and not yours. Now, for obvious reasons, the judge normally sides with HMRC, although there have been cases where this hasn't happened.

        In the past, there was no law that said avoidance was illegal. Even if the sole purpose of the instrument was to avoid tax, it was still legal and this is what many accountants would play professional oneupmanship on. Who could come up with the cleverest way to stay within the law, whilst minimising tax. The law change has effectively said that unless you can prove the instrument exists for reasons other than tax avoidance, it is illegal, which is a wholesale change.

        So, ALL ISAs are illegal in every way. They are setup with the sole intention of avoiding the payment of income tax on the interest earned. The difference is that government has said they like them and they're OK, so HMRC are ignoring it. However, a loan from a company that you never intend to repay (a common occurrence in the past and I believe similar to what Jimmy Carr was doing) has gone from legal to illegal!! Both are purely trying to evade income tax. One is legal, one is not. How come?

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Politcally created issue

          @Mad Max

          Yes there is much about HMRC that is 'different' to other organisations. In some respects all the new law concerning tax avoidance is bring HMRC's take on the matter into line with it's general position on tax demands; namely, under UK law HMRC doesn't need to be reasonable, the onus is on you to demonstrate that their demands are wholly unreasonable (not just unreasonable!). So as you say "unless you can prove the instrument exists for reasons other than tax avoidance, it is illegal".

    3. e^iπ+1=0

      Re: Politcally created issue

      "A few quid, that's fine, but thousands"

      Nah mate, you don't get it. A few quid, they want you to pay it back with punitive interest.

      A few billion quid and they're queueing up to suck you off, letting you know that a few (more) quid in the right direction will magically make all your problems disappear.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    why the hell did Carr get attacked and Barlow was 'ignored'?

    10x as much money buys far better lawyers?

    1. Richard Taylor 2

      No, 10x money buys much larger party political donations

  15. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Down to the Real Nitty Gritty of the Matter

    Surely the more worrying concern is that some members of the Cabinet and in Government with Parliamentarians were aware of the shenanigans and thought it appropriate to remain remarkable silent and inactive in ensuring that there be prosecutions for what is popularly perceived as wanton criminality.

    And that smacks of an aspiring conspiracy to prevent and pervert the course of justice in the political parties now vying for future power through upcoming elections Are there then proven crooks squatting in the offices of power in Westminster, and avoiding straight answers to awkward searching questions?

    The available evidence, which is not disputed, would appear to suggest and prove that it be so. So who thinks it is a good idea to have crooks ruling lives and for one to be electing them into office rather than rejecting them at the ballot box?

  16. F0ul

    Didn't realise it was so long ago!

    So an IT bod, decides to run off with 100 Gb of data from a bank and finding that he can't sell it, he decides to go all julian assange! What's the story?

    His moral outrage is neutralized by what he did having broken enough written and unwritten laws to make sure nobody will ever trust him again with their data.

    The legal issue doesn't even exist in that EU law is not relevant in Switzerland, and advising people of the law abroad is also not illegal.

    Since the US successfully introduced their worldwide financial laws (how do their enforce such a thing, except through raw threats?), the EU wants to do the same, and this story is helping bring it into the social agenda.

    While I seem to be in the minority opinion that Tax is theft, it does seem to me that far too many people think there is something illegal in not paying too much tax. Funny enough, none of these people are willing to pay bonus tax - maybe just a few percent of their annual wage?

    Not paying too much tax isn't just a rich thing then?

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Didn't realise it was so long ago!

      @F0ul.

      I do find a lot of the pompous outrage in the press and amongst people quite funny. Most people (probably all) evade tax on some occasions. Completing some transactions in cash is simply one good example. People pretend that it isn't their fault as whether the person declares it or not is up to them, but in reality, they know and are complicit in what is occurring.

      Whilst the tax evaded is large in some cases, the morality of it is surely a question of relativity. If you should have paid £2,000 in tax, but actually paid £1,800 (£200 tax loss), is that any better or worse than someone who should have paid £200,000 paying £180,000? The level of evasion (in percentage terms) is actually the same. However, the second will almost certainly attract far more criticism than the first. Is that fair?

      Whilst I've always believed people should pay their fair share and accept the country can't function without tax and understand what they get back for it, those who do all the complaining are probably just as guilty of evading tax on occasion. Almost nobody is genuinely free of some culpability at some level.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Didn't realise it was so long ago!

        "accept the country can't function without tax"

        Doh, well just fuck off to some other country that appears to suit you better vis a vis your perceived level of contribution to their tax system.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Didn't realise it was so long ago!

        >The level of evasion (in percentage terms) is actually the same.

        But their level of evasion would have payed for teachers, nurses, etc

        Your level of evasion would only have paid for an MP's lunch

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Didn't realise it was so long ago!

          @Yet Another Anonymous Coward.

          "But their level of evasion would have payed for teachers, nurses, etc

          Your level of evasion would only have paid for an MP's lunch"

          I don't disagree with your summary, but does that make it a worse crime? I'm asking a question and not postulating an answer. I'm asking people to consider if the severity of the crime is proportionate to the percentage you've evaded, or the absolute amount. I can see arguments both ways, but often with tax evasion, it seems people with a lot of money and who have evaded the most in absolute measure, but not necessarily by percentage, are massively pilloried compared to those who evade a large percentage, but smaller absolute amount.

          Take for example a builder. He agrees to do some jobs tax in hand. He evades £5k in tax, but still pays £20k in total. Then, take a millionaire. He should have paid £400k in tax, but actually managed to evade £10k. Which is the bigger criminal? If they actually evaded the same amount (both £5k), do you not think the millionaire would get a much worse time of it and be more pilloried in the press? Is that fair?

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Didn't realise it was so long ago!

      "So an IT bod, decides to run off with 100 Gb of data from a bank and finding that he can't sell it, he decides to go all julian assange! What's the story?"

      Reread it. He went to swiss police in the first instance but they couldn't guarantee his protection.

  17. Scott Broukell
    Meh

    It would appear that there is not a hole lot of difference twixt Swiss banks and Swiss cheese.

  18. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    HSBC is not a cop

    The US law requiring banks to "know your customer" is just an end run around our Fourth Amendment. Our law enforcement can't just go fishing for 'bad people' based on some profile. They need a warrant. So they just create a regulation that requires private entities to stick their nose in customers' business. And file reports with the regulators.

    That said, HSBC are idiots if they had someone walk in the lobby and ask for advice on dodging the US taxman. Apply for an account under the name Mr Smith. Fine. Just make sure you comply with Swiss law. If the IRS comes in with a warrant based on some probable cause that Mr. Smith has commited some crime, then the account information will be delivered. But having money and a common surname isn't prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.

    Our cops are getting lazy. And they are expecting private organizations to do far too much policing for them.

    1. Squander Two

      Re: HSBC is not a cop

      > If the IRS comes in with a warrant

      To a Swiss bank? Under what authority?

      1. xerocred

        Re: HSBC is not a cop

        If you hold or exchange US $... that is their authority.

        1. Squander Two

          Re: HSBC is not a cop

          Er, no, it really isn't. I hate to break this to you, but the authority of the IRS extends as far as the borders of the USA. It's called a "jurisdiction".

          Just to be clear, do you think the Swiss tax authorities can descend on a bank in Connecticut with a warrant? Because I can assure you there are banks in Connecticut dealing in Swiss francs.

  19. Lars Silver badge
    Coat

    A Swiss account

    " tax-avoidance maneuvers used by some of the planet's wealthiest people. "

    That too, but apparently there are also billions of drug money and money laundering.

    It's perhaps too much to demand that a bank should know exactly the background to each transaction and then say - "try next door".

    The solution is then that authorities dealing with dirty money of any kind are allowed a more open access to those accounts and transactions.

    And that is exactly what the Swiss don't want to happen, as it's such a good business, not that they are alone in that respect, of course.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A Swiss account

      The solution is then that authorities dealing with dirty money of any kind are allowed a more open access to those accounts and transactions.

      And that is exactly what the Swiss don't want to happen, as it's such a good business, not that they are alone in that respect, of course.

      Absolutely not. The Swiss will happily assist in an investigation if you show enough probable cause to Swiss legal standards. The latter is quite a high bar as Switzerland is a direct democracy and laws are thus generally applied properly unless economic blackmail of epic proportions takes place (the favourite tactic of the good ol' US of A).

      The whole Wall Street marketing strategy of blaming other nations and other financial centres for their problems is getting old - most nations (including Switzerland) have been cleaning out some of the crud which, ironically, tended to be inspired by what took place in the US. That doesn't mean that all is well, but I would venture that it's time to ignore the obvious distractions and start looking at what Wall Street is been trying to divert your attention from.

      If you need any more help to work out what the US has really been inspiring I suggest you look for the Citibank memos issued in 2005, 2006 and 2007. They have been trying to suppress them, but a bit of Google will still find you the Plutocracy memos. They're worth reading, as they will tell you why they needed to keep you distracted. Be warned, it's not a very nice read if you're not mega rich.

  20. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Flame

    "Although there are numerous legitimate reasons to have a Swiss bank account"

    Bullshit.

    There is only one legitimate reason to have a Swiss bank account : you are Swiss.

    If you're not, you're evading taxes. Period.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: "Although there are numerous legitimate reasons to have a Swiss bank account"

      A second is that you wish to get paid!

      Sometimes in international business it is easier to get monies paid into a non-UK/US account than it is to have monies paid into a UK account. It is probably due in part to the Swiss banking reputation. So you, a UK company, can get paid for delivering an air traffic control system for example, without there being a 'public' audit trail to indicate who actually paid and from which of their many bank accounts...

    2. Squander Two

      Re: "Although there are numerous legitimate reasons to have a Swiss bank account"

      Friend of mine lives and works in Switzerland. She's British. I assume she has a Swiss bank account, just as my American friend who lives in the UK has a British bank account. None of this strikes me as suspicious.

      Then there are the people who travel around the world a lot, such as oil rig workers, NGOs that help build infrastructure in the developing world, etc. They need one central point to keep their money whence it can be readily accessed internationally.

      Then there are entities who trade on international currency markets, who might well have a Swiss bank account for the obvious purpose of keeping their Swiss francs in, just as they maintain American accounts for keeping dollars in, Japanese accounts for keeping Yen in, etc.

      There are lots of people in the world whose lives aren't like yours. They're not all criminals.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Although there are numerous legitimate reasons to have a Swiss bank account"

      Hey, you don't know what you are talking about. I'm British and live outside the UK, I have no income in the UK and no Tax liability, save for the comedy dividends from BT (that are taxed). If I have a UK mainland account it would be taxed on interest that I cannot claim back.

      So am I 'evading tax' by not having a UK bank account?

      I'd be more than a bit hacked off with this bastard stealing my data and perhaps making me the victim of identity theft and so on. It's none of his or rest of EU or US business.

      (I pay my local taxes too BTW)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like