UK Chancellor wants to exempt families of "Politically Exposed Persons" from money laundering scrutiny


#1

[Read the post]


#2

In case anyone needed any further evidence that the Cameron government is about as corrupt as possible…


#3

It’s not enough for these cunts to lord it over us; they have to slap us in the face with their cocks too.


#4

:musical_note: His truth is marching on! :musical_note:


#5

This is some straight up banana republic shit. Fucking hell.


#6

The story as stated here is simply untrue. Osborne has not exempted Politically Exposed Persons from these regulations – to do so would be to cancel them, since they only apply to such Politically Exposed Persons. He’s exempted MPs and their families from being considered as Politically Exposed Persons, so they still face exactly the same money laundering regulations as the rest of us, unless one of us happens to be a third-world dictator or Russian oligarch.


#7

“amended”

Bankster fuckery, indeed.


#8

Money brings people like this only so much satisfaction. It’s been a long time (1922 actually sounds about right) since they’ve been able to show this much contempt for the peons in public.


#9

Yes. It looks like they are taken off of the ‘always check’ list that they are apparently on by default.
The article makes it look as if they will never be checked no more. It confused me.


#10


#11

Wait: specifically exempting the class of people whose financial data are most likely to reveal troubling conflicts of interest or self-dealing in positions of power?

I can see why people in positions of power with troubling conflicts of interest would love it; but from an ‘any kind of moral or pragmatic justification’ perspective, you could not come up with a more perverse arrangement.

If financial privacy is a good, the people with the greatest claim to it would be the largely powerless peons(both because they are least able to defend it by private means like Panamanian law firms with lousy IT staff, and because their lack of power provides excellent evidence that they aren’t abusing their power or plundering the public purse); and the people you can most plausibly argue have consented to disclosure are the ones voluntarily seeking positions of trust, honor, and power.


#12

Given the stories about the sorts of schools that produce Britain’s elites, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if ritualistic facial cockslapping is not rhetorical; and may already have happened in varies smaller-scale contexts.


#13

Corrupt pieces of shit.


#14

Well, yes, except that as we’ve seen, one’s family is an excellent place to fob off one’s financial shenanigans so as to avoid exposure, so this rule will in fact increase corruption, and we can reasonably assume that that is its purpose.


#15

THE ARISTOCRATS!!!


#16

#17

He compared the mandatory publication of MPs’ tax returns to a law that banned curtains.

We could ban them just for MPs. If you’re standing for public office then you don’t get any privacy, that’s fair in my mind.


#18

It’s more like a law that makes it illegal to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.


#19

Gently paging, @japhroaig.


#20

I myself am politically exposed. My re-election as co-treasurer of the school PTA is up soon. I shall not be submitting any further tax returns.