Isn’t that sort of the point of doing it in a tax haven?
Exactly. If it weren’t legal in Panama, they’d have done it the Caymans, or Bermuda, or Belize, or Cyprus, or Luxembourg, or St Barts… where it was.
That, or you know…the data leak gave the company time to conceal everything.
I mean, this raid happened what, a week later?
Exactly this. The problem isn’t that it’s illegal, it’s that it isn’t. (at least in Panama) There was a story the other day linking the l practice of shady shell companies in Panama to the use of it as a shady flag of convenience. It started with ships and then changed to everything.
When you write the laws - nothing you do is illegal.
Same reason the Enron scandal and other Wall Street shenanigans resulted in almost no arrests. The laws are already so skewed in favor of the banking class than you have to try really, really hard to do something illegal enough to end up behind bars.
Did anybody notice the part about "we don’t have the evidence yet?" I know the tumbrels should already have rolled, but it sounds like these reactionaries want to actually study the documents before putting anybody to death. Clearly they are corrupt.
Standard BoingBoing journalism. “Hasn’t found evidence” becomes “can’t find evidence.”
What Panamanian laws do you think they broke?
It’s like Calvinball for grownups.
That’s KathyPadilla’s point, I think: when you write the laws (or bribe the appropriate legislative representatives to write the laws for you), then there will be no law for you to break.
Do I understand this correctly:
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) distributed the documents for investigation and analysis to some 400 journalists at 107 media organizations in 76 countries. It took them over a year of investigation to even begin to start releasing their findings.
The Panamanian police raided Mossack Fonseca on Tuesday, and by Thursday morning was holding a press conference to tell everyone that no evidence of a crime was found.
Ok, well then what did Mossack-Fonseca do wrong? Even if there’s no law against it, what should they be punished for?
What is alleged to have happened under their assistance? Facilitating the transfer of the tax burden from the ultra rich to the poor. Helping launder money. Undermining democracy. Facilitating the Iran Contra arms for hostages deal.
Being big poopey heads.
Most countries have laws regarding aiding and abetting others committing crimes, possessing stolen property, living off the proceeds of crime, etc.
Even if Mossack-Fonseca officials aren’t breaking Panamanian law, there’s no reason why - if their clients were breaking laws in other countries - those officials shouldn’t be charged in they ever set foot in those other countries.
There’s also the recognition that someone can technically not commit a crime, but still be doing something goddamned unethical. That seems to be the case for many of their clients at the very least. If punishment means “becoming pariahs”, they can hardly complain.
Well, I’m sure I don’t know. I don’t watch the news on TV, listen to it on the radio, read about it in newspapers or have any online facilities that will point me to articles that mention Mossack-Fonseca, and neither do I pay any attention to answers when I ask other people.
Oh my god, I am so sorry. I never even considered that your unhelpful blend of ignorance and self-righteousness was the result of such cripplingly disadvantageous circumstances
I’m not ignorant because of circumstances, I am a self-made ignoramus, dammit! I’ve worked hard to be this self-righteous, and you all could be the same if you just pulled yourselves up by your boot-straps!
I’m working on it!
You are assuming that the officials had ethics in the first place.