Thailand And Money Laundering

[think_too_mut]

Almost weekly, a post that whiffs of money laundering pops up in this section.

If people think Thailand is a naive and easy place to manipulate dirty money, think again.

As this article illustrates, America mainland is the world leader when ito comes to money laundering opportunities.

Haven hypocrisy

Mar 26th 2009 | BERLIN

From The Economist print edition

Big economies are leaning on offshore tax havens. But greater abuse may be taking place at home

MONEY launderers are moved by greed, unlike Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University. Yet with a budget of $10,000 and little more than Google (and the ads at the back of this paper), he showed how easy it was to circumvent prohibitions on banking secrecy, forming anonymous shell companies and secret bank accounts across the world. In doing so he has uncovered an uncomfortable truth for many of the leaders of Group of 20 nations meeting on April 2nd to discuss, among other things, sanctions against offshore tax havens. The most egregious examples of banking secrecy, money laundering and tax fraud are found not in remote alpine valleys or on sunny tropical isles but in the backyards of the world’s biggest economies.

At issue is not banking secrecy as the Swiss once knew it, where discreet men in plush offices promised to take the names of their clients to the grave. This is a more insidious form of secrecy, in which authorities and bankers do not bother to ask for names, something long outlawed in offshore tax centres such as Jersey and Switzerland but which has persisted in America. For shady clients, this is a far better proposition: what their bankers do not know, they can never be forced to reveal. And their method is disarmingly simple. Instead of opening bank accounts in their own names, fraudsters and money launderers form anonymous companies, with which they can then open bank accounts and move assets.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in America. Take Nevada, for example. Its official website touts its “limited reporting and disclosure requirements” and a speedy one-hour incorporation service. Nevada does not ask for the names of company shareholders, nor does it routinely share the little information it has with the federal government.

There is demand for this ask-no-questions approach. The state, with a population of only 2.6m, incorporates about 80,000 new firms a year and now has more than 400,000, roughly one for every six people. A study by the Internal Revenue Service found that 50-90% of those registering companies were already in breach of federal tax laws elsewhere.

A money-laundering threat assessment in 2005 by the federal government found that corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven.

Change may be coming in America, but slowly. In March Senator Carl Levin proposed a law forcing states to identify the beneficial owners of corporations. “For too long, criminals have misused US corporations to hide illicit activity, including money laundering and tax fraud,” said Mr Levin. “It doesn’t make sense that less information is required to form a US corporation than to obtain a driver’s licence.”

Yet a similar bill introduced last year died a quiet death in committee.

America is not the only rich nation Mr Sharman tested. He tried to open anonymous shell companies and bank accounts 45 times across the world. These were successful in 17 cases, of which 13 were in OECD countries. One example was Britain, where in 45 minutes on the internet he formed a company without providing identification, was issued with bearer shares (which have been almost universally outlawed because they confer completely anonymous ownership) as well as nominee directors and a secretary. All was achieved at a cost of £515.95 ($753).

In other cases Mr Sharman formed companies by providing no more than a scanned copy of his driving licence. In contrast, when trying to open accounts in Bermuda and Switzerland, he was asked for documentation such as notarised copies of his birth certificate. “In practice OECD countries have much laxer regulation on shell corporations than classic tax havens,” Mr Sharman concludes. “And the US is the worst on this score, worse than Liechtenstein and worse than Somalia.”

Original article, has a nice picture from Wyoming

[Naam]

Almost weekly, a post that whiffs of money laundering pops up in this section.

If people think Thailand is a naive and easy place to manipulate dirty money, think again.

As this article illustrates, America mainland is the world leader when ito comes to money laundering opportunities.

Haven hypocrisy

Mar 26th 2009 | BERLIN

From The Economist print edition

Big economies are leaning on offshore tax havens. But greater abuse may be taking place at home

MONEY launderers are moved by greed, unlike Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University. Yet with a budget of $10,000 and little more than Google (and the ads at the back of this paper), he showed how easy it was to circumvent prohibitions on banking secrecy, forming anonymous shell companies and secret bank accounts across the world. In doing so he has uncovered an uncomfortable truth for many of the leaders of Group of 20 nations meeting on April 2nd to discuss, among other things, sanctions against offshore tax havens. The most egregious examples of banking secrecy, money laundering and tax fraud are found not in remote alpine valleys or on sunny tropical isles but in the backyards of the world’s biggest economies.

At issue is not banking secrecy as the Swiss once knew it, where discreet men in plush offices promised to take the names of their clients to the grave. This is a more insidious form of secrecy, in which authorities and bankers do not bother to ask for names, something long outlawed in offshore tax centres such as Jersey and Switzerland but which has persisted in America. For shady clients, this is a far better proposition: what their bankers do not know, they can never be forced to reveal. And their method is disarmingly simple. Instead of opening bank accounts in their own names, fraudsters and money launderers form anonymous companies, with which they can then open bank accounts and move assets.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in America. Take Nevada, for example. Its official website touts its “limited reporting and disclosure requirements” and a speedy one-hour incorporation service. Nevada does not ask for the names of company shareholders, nor does it routinely share the little information it has with the federal government.

There is demand for this ask-no-questions approach. The state, with a population of only 2.6m, incorporates about 80,000 new firms a year and now has more than 400,000, roughly one for every six people. A study by the Internal Revenue Service found that 50-90% of those registering companies were already in breach of federal tax laws elsewhere.

A money-laundering threat assessment in 2005 by the federal government found that corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven.

Change may be coming in America, but slowly. In March Senator Carl Levin proposed a law forcing states to identify the beneficial owners of corporations. “For too long, criminals have misused US corporations to hide illicit activity, including money laundering and tax fraud,” said Mr Levin. “It doesn’t make sense that less information is required to form a US corporation than to obtain a driver’s licence.”

Yet a similar bill introduced last year died a quiet death in committee.

America is not the only rich nation Mr Sharman tested. He tried to open anonymous shell companies and bank accounts 45 times across the world. These were successful in 17 cases, of which 13 were in OECD countries. One example was Britain, where in 45 minutes on the internet he formed a company without providing identification, was issued with bearer shares (which have been almost universally outlawed because they confer completely anonymous ownership) as well as nominee directors and a secretary. All was achieved at a cost of £515.95 ($753).

In other cases Mr Sharman formed companies by providing no more than a scanned copy of his driving licence. In contrast, when trying to open accounts in Bermuda and Switzerland, he was asked for documentation such as notarised copies of his birth certificate. “In practice OECD countries have much laxer regulation on shell corporations than classic tax havens,” Mr Sharman concludes. “And the US is the worst on this score, worse than Liechtenstein and worse than Somalia.”

Original article, has a nice picture from Wyoming

red = bullshit²

blue = anonymous corporation is correct, but NO bank account without names and proof of residency of the beneficiaries and the ones who hold general power of attorney.

facit: the author has not done his homework!

[think_too_mut]

facit: the author has not done his homework!

It's fair to assume the professor has shown the author the proof - the accounts he had opened and moved money around? That's what the whole experiment was that made it into The Economist.

Bloomberg/CNN junk on your big screen did not report it? Never will.

[Naam]

facit: the author has not done his homework!

It's fair to assume the professor has shown the author the proof - the accounts he had opened and moved money around? That's what the whole experiment was that made it into The Economist. Bloomberg/CNN junk on your big screen did not report it? Never will.

NO, it's not fair to assume anything because i know for sure it is not true. i am dealing with this "problem" on behalf of others since a few years and my information is up-to-date. fact is that the hurdles have been even lifted. that the author puts some emphasis on corporations with anonymous shareholders and uses the word "secret bank acounts" proves that he

-does not know that the corporate setup is irrelevant when opening an account where the names of beneficiaries and holders of PoA have to be laid open by presenting original or notarised passports/IDs, a publicly listed company has of course no beneficiaries for banking purposes but the holders of PoA will have to follow the strict procedures.

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

p.s. my opinion on "The Economist" (i have mentioned that before) is

[think_too_mut]

facit: the author has not done his homework!

It's fair to assume the professor has shown the author the proof - the accounts he had opened and moved money around? That's what the whole experiment was that made it into The Economist. Bloomberg/CNN junk on your big screen did not report it? Never will.

NO, it's not fair to assume anything because i know for sure it is not true. i am dealing with this "problem" on behalf of others since a few years and my information is up-to-date. fact is that the hurdles have been even lifted. that the author puts some emphasis on corporations with anonymous shareholders and uses the word "secret bank acounts" proves that he

-does not know that the corporate setup is irrelevant when opening an account where the names of beneficiaries and holders of PoA have to be laid open by presenting original or notarised passports/IDs, a publicly listed company has of course no beneficiaries for banking purposes but the holders of PoA will have to follow the strict procedures.

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

p.s. my opinion on "The Economist" (i have mentioned that before) is

No?

The professor with a budget to pay the fees when opening accunts, has opened them and moved the money between is a liar? What other proof you need? To be reported on your debilitating TV?

How about a similar experiment: a journalist puts 100$ into several banks and waits and reports what is left after 1 year.

40$, 30$, 50$, depending on a bank.

[Naam]

The professor with a budget to pay the fees when opening accunts, has opened them and moved the money between is a liar? What other proof you need? To be reported on your debilitating TV?

either that or the journ@sslist mixed up and distorted things as it happens quite often. and that happens with TV, magazine and newspaper journ@sslists and even newswires like Reuters, Bloomie, AFP et al.

by the way, "my" TV is not debilitating. is yours perhaps?

[think_too_mut]

The professor with a budget to pay the fees when opening accunts, has opened them and moved the money between is a liar? What other proof you need? To be reported on your debilitating TV?

either that or the journ@sslist mixed up and distorted things as it happens quite often. and that happens with TV, magazine and newspaper journ@sslists and even newswires like Reuters, Bloomie, AFP et al.

by the way, "my" TV is not debilitating. is yours perhaps?

I have not watched the box for 20 years, it is never watched in my house.

Now, what we have: your crusade against the article. What qualifies you other than endless ranting about anything?

[barrella]

Please, I am no economist and I am no super smart guy. Everything I do, say or work on is based only on the most lowest common denominator of thinking, maybe it could be called common sense. Following these rules has so far done me good.

I assume that the point of this thread is that many people around the world are under the impression that lots of other people are laundering money in Asia and a good chunk of this is in Thailand. Maybe a lot of the worlds money laundering is done here in goof old bkk, or maybe it is not, I do not know.

The writer of the piece quoted above is trying to show that laundering money is far more easy in courtiers that you would not normally perceive as countries it was easy to launder money in.

If I was going to launder money I am sure it is a profession riddled with laws, problems and pit falls so to make a go of it I would have to know an awful lot about it, mainly the individual country laws I was operating in to make sure I did not get thrown in the clink.

If I was smart enough to understand these laws and know ways of not getting caught then it would make sense that I would choose the country or courtiers that I stood less chance of being caught in.

So using the rules I run my life by (common sense), a country that has the most or a very high rate of money laundering would most likely be the country that has the easiest rules to circumvent.

From what we are led to believe Thailand has a high amount of money laundering so would this not mean that it had some of the easiest ways of by passing and jumping through rules so you do not get caught, rather than what the author quoted above believes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Edited March 27, 2009 by barrella

[Naam]

The professor with a budget to pay the fees when opening accunts, has opened them and moved the money between is a liar? What other proof you need? To be reported on your debilitating TV?

either that or the journ@sslist mixed up and distorted things as it happens quite often. and that happens with TV, magazine and newspaper journ@sslists and even newswires like Reuters, Bloomie, AFP et al.

by the way, "my" TV is not debilitating. is yours perhaps?

I have not watched the box for 20 years, it is never watched in my house.

Now, what we have: your crusade against the article. What qualifies you other than endless ranting about anything?

i am qualified to realise when its time to end a useless discussion with a layman

[think_too_mut]

i am qualified to realise when its time to end a useless discussion with a layman

Adio. Your drivel won't be missed.

[AnnyLing]

The report mentions nowhere that a secret bank account was opened without divulging the beneficiary. Assuming I have not overlooked something of importance then Namms statement seems to be correct.

[think_too_mut]

The report mentions nowhere that a secret bank account was opened without divulging the beneficiary. Assuming I have not overlooked something of importance then Namms statement seems to be correct.

So, what's the professor talking about then? His impression where it might be easier than in Thailand?

It took Pattaya oldie to discover that there is absolutely nothing in the article and anyone off the street confused with junk TV could have burbled anything off their mind which gets printed right int nowhere else than in The Economist.

To start with: What was the budget assigned for? To pay account opening fees.

Edited March 29, 2009 by think_too_mut

[hhgz]

"MONEY launderers are moved by greed, unlike Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University...fraudsters and money launderers form anonymous companies, with which they can then open bank accounts and move assets...corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven."

Jason and thinktoomutt need to think about this a little harder. Both of them confuse "money laundering" with "tax haven", a regrettable mistake. Many companies are incorporated in Nevada, and Delaware because of the level of corporate taxation, rather than the ease to commit crimes.

[meom]

-does not know that the corporate setup is irrelevant when opening an account where the names of beneficiaries and holders of PoA have to be laid open by presenting original or notarised passports/IDs, a publicly listed company has of course no beneficiaries for banking purposes but the holders of PoA will have to follow the strict procedures.

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

p.s. my opinion on "The Economist" (i have mentioned that before) is

How about online brokerage accounts such as eTrade ? Apparently these are fairly easy to open without anybody verifying anything and transferring illegal gains into these accounts is a piece of cake as well.

[Naam]

-does not know that the corporate setup is irrelevant when opening an account where the names of beneficiaries and holders of PoA have to be laid open by presenting original or notarised passports/IDs, a publicly listed company has of course no beneficiaries for banking purposes but the holders of PoA will have to follow the strict procedures.

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

p.s. my opinion on "The Economist" (i have mentioned that before) is

How about online brokerage accounts such as eTrade ? Apparently these are fairly easy to open without anybody verifying anything and transferring illegal gains into these accounts is a piece of cake as well.

"apparently"!

[lannarebirth]

-does not know that the corporate setup is irrelevant when opening an account where the names of beneficiaries and holders of PoA have to be laid open by presenting original or notarised passports/IDs, a publicly listed company has of course no beneficiaries for banking purposes but the holders of PoA will have to follow the strict procedures.

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

p.s. my opinion on "The Economist" (i have mentioned that before) is

How about online brokerage accounts such as eTrade ? Apparently these are fairly easy to open without anybody verifying anything and transferring illegal gains into these accounts is a piece of cake as well.

"apparently"!

The "security measures" for US based brokerages have been increased significantly.It took me 6 months to open a second account at a brokerage I've had an existing account for 12 years. Nobody believes anybody anymore, including their own prior vetting processes.

Edited March 29, 2009 by lannarebirth

[think_too_mut]

"MONEY launderers are moved by greed, unlike Jason Sharman, a political scientist at Australia’s Griffith University...fraudsters and money launderers form anonymous companies, with which they can then open bank accounts and move assets...corporate anonymity offered by Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming rivalled that of familiar offshore financial centres. For foreigners, America is a particularly attractive place to stash cash, because it does not tax the interest income they earn. Thus with both anonymity and no taxation, America offers them all the elements of a tax haven."

Jason and thinktoomutt need to think about this a little harder. Both of them confuse "money laundering" with "tax haven", a regrettable mistake. Many companies are incorporated in Nevada, and Delaware because of the level of corporate taxation, rather than the ease to commit crimes.

Bank of America, as one big example, is incoporated in Delaware. For anonymity?

Anonymity is one element of money laundering which is apparently neither needed nor used by legitimate companies.

The original article has (so far) 15 comments.

Click on it and scroll to the bottom:

Click

Edited March 29, 2009 by think_too_mut

[Naam]

The report mentions nowhere that a secret bank account was opened without divulging the beneficiary. Assuming I have not overlooked something of importance then Namms statement seems to be correct.

So, what's the professor talking about then? His impression where it might be easier than in Thailand?

It took Pattaya oldie to discover that there is absolutely nothing in the article and anyone off the street confused with junk TV could have burbled anything off their mind which gets printed right int nowhere else than in The Economist.

To start with: What was the budget assigned for? To pay account opening fees.

until now the young Oz-boy has still not realised that he is clinging to rubbish as he has no facts -except ranting- to present. it also seems that he has either problems to read or to understand what a Pattaya oldie says on "secret" bank accounts and forming offshore corporations.

i am typing now very slowly that all young boys with reading problems are able to follow, using simple language and i separate the information with paragraphs to make it easier to comprehend.

-the journalist from "The Economist" clearly mixed up things and drew wrong conclusions.

-"secret" bank accounts exist in movies only.

-bank accounts where the beneficiaries can hide behind a corporation do of course exist and can still be established. but these corporations have to be either publicly listed or publish annual reports and all persons with PoA have to comply with identification procedures. the shareholders of Sony, Bangkok Bank, General Motors et al -especially Al - which are indirect beneficiaries are of course not known to the banks.

-bank or brokerage accounts cannot be established without submitting original or notarised identification documents, proof of residence AND transfer of money from an ESTABLISHED BANK ACCOUNT.

-establishing an offshore corporation is a breeze. it can indeed be done with faxed copies or scans of IDs (and fake ones), thereby hiding the true identity of the corporation's beneficiary/beneficiaries. but such a corporation is of no use when establishing a bank account because the bank demands in case of a corporate account:

-a board resolution to empower a certain person opening a bank account. in this resolution the name, nationality and passport number of the empowered person has to be mentioned. and that means nothing else than TRACEABLE and BACK TO SQARE ONE, NO SECRECY. in some cases the "handlers" of offshore corporations offer to open bank accounts to facilitate the procedure and act as intermediary with the bank. in these cases those with PoA to the account have to follow the same procedure as the beneficiary, i.e. again TRACEABLE and BACK TO SQARE ONE, NO SECRECY and criminal procedures against those who hold PoA in case the "real" beneficiary uses the account for illegal activities.

the young Oz-boy has still to discover that some Pattaya oldies have in the pinky finger of their left hand more accumulated knowledge about banking, banking regulations, offshore corporations and investment that he will ever possess in his whole life. that discovery is optional and of course (given the displayed stubbornes to acquire knowledge) very doubtful

[think_too_mut]

the young Oz-boy has still to discover that some Pattaya oldies have in the pinky finger of their left hand more accumulated knowledge about banking, banking regulations, offshore corporations and investment that he will ever possess in his whole life. that discovery is optional and of course (given the displayed stubbornes to acquire knowledge) very doubtful

My dear oldie, it's only your age that has prevented me from putting you on my ignore list.

[stumonster]

-that he has seen to many Hollywood movies in which secret bank accounts play a role.

the young Oz-boy has still to discover that some Pattaya oldies have in the pinky finger of their left hand more accumulated knowledge about banking, banking regulations, offshore corporations and investment that he will ever possess in his whole life. that discovery is optional and of course (given the displayed stubbornes to acquire knowledge) very doubtful

well , naam , call the young boy out ? gain some credibility

Contact Details

* Telephone (07) 373REMOVETHISTEXT REMOVETHISTEXT56756

* Griffith Extension 56756

* Facsimile (07) 373REMOVETHISTEXT REMOVETHISTEXT57737

* Mobile -

* Griffith Location Business 2 (N72) -1.04

* Postal Address Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Nathan campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

* Campus Address Nathan campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD, 4111

* Email Address j.sharman[at]griffith.edu.au

[Naam]

well , naam , call the young boy out ? gain some credibility

tit for tat Stumonster. read first above before you judge. somebody who calls me "oldie from Pattaya" must accept that i assume he is an immature young boy.

by the way, it is very interesting in TV-forum that people who run out of arguments resort to personal attacks and start mentioning completely irrelevant things like today in another thread "you can't be taken serious as you live in Pattaya and therefore must be married to an ex...".

[think_too_mut]

well , naam , call the young boy out ? gain some credibility

tit for tat Stumonster. read first above before you judge. somebody who calls me "oldie from Pattaya" must accept that i assume he is an immature young boy.

by the way, it is very interesting in TV-forum that people who run out of arguments resort to personal attacks and start mentioning completely irrelevant things like today in another thread "you can't be taken serious as you live in Pattaya and therefore must be married to an ex...".

That's what you just demonstrated - your obsession with...

Did you read the comments on the site of The Economist?

Hardly anyone is questioning the credibility of the researcher.

Why don't you get published in The Economist? According to your posts, you can pack them in a tumble weed roll and throw them down the street.

[meom]

All things considered what do you guys think would be the easier venue for money laundering; A Nevada stripclub or a Pattaya GoGo bar?