#mossack fonseca

[noticlick]

Juez decidirá sentencia en caso "Lava Jato" en Panamá

El juicio por el caso “Lava Jato” en Panamá, relacionado con el bufete Mossack Fonseca, acogiéndose al plazo que ofrece la ley, concluyó este lunes con la decisión de la jueza tomarse el tiempo necesario para emitir la sentencia a los 32 imputados de blanqueo de capitales. La defensa alegó que sus clientes eran absolutamente inocentes, pero el ministerio público solicitó penas para 28 personas.…

[adribosch-fan]

Panamá: juzgan a fundadores de Mossack Fonseca por Lava Jato

Jürguen Mossack y Ramón Fonseca son fundadores del despacho de abogados protagonista del escándalo de “Panama Papers”. Archivo Los fundadores del desaparecido despacho panameño de abogados Mossack Fonseca, protagonista del escándalo internacional de los llamados “Panama Papers“, son juzgados desde este lunes (26.06.2023) por presunto blanqueo de capitales en el caso “Lava Jato”…

[dailyhistoryposts]

On This Day In History

April 3rd, 2016: The Panama Papers, (11.5 million documents detailing illegal activities by Mossack Fonseca) are leaked by an anonymous source.

[cookthepenguin]

remember this?

they’re trialing 27 employees and not one client

[underthewingsofthblackeagle]

In 2016, a huge trove of leaked documents revealed how the law firm Mossack Fonseca helped the world's rich and powerful evade taxes and hide their wealth. The scandal became known as the Panama Papers and it ensnared many of the world's wealthiest people - from billionaires to politicians to sports stars. Today, 27 people are going on trial in Panama City for alleged money laundering connected to the case. Further information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Pandora_Papers

[bouncinghedgehog]

The Panama Papers (Spanish: Papeles de Panamá) are 11.5 million leaked documents (or 2.6 terabytes of data) that were published beginning on April 3, 2016. The papers detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. The documents, some dating back to the 1970s, were created by, and taken from, former Panamanian offshore law firm and corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca, and compiled with similar leaks into a searchable database.

[wrcl]

O ministro Paulo Guedes não é o único integrante da equipe econômica nos Pandora Papers. O presidente do Banco Central, Roberto Campos Neto, também consta nos documentos como dono da Cor Assets S.A., uma offshore no Panamá, outro paraíso fiscal, situado na América Central. Campos Neto criou sua offshore em 2004, com um capital de 1,09 milhão de dólares – 3,3 milhões de reais à época, que, se fossem repatriados hoje, equivaleriam a 5,8 milhões de reais – e continuava como controlador quando assumiu o posto no governo em fevereiro de 2019. À diferença de Guedes, ele fechou sua offshore em outubro do ano passado. Ainda assim, durante os 21 meses em que presidiu o BC na condição de dono da Cor Assets, Campos Neto poderia ser enquadrado no artigo 5º do Código de Conduta.

No cargo de presidente do BC, Campos Neto também tem acesso a dados estratégicos, como câmbio e taxas de juros, capazes de afetar seus investimentos lá fora. Em julho do ano passado, por exemplo, ele assinou uma portaria mudando as regras para a declaração de ativos no exterior. Até então, todo brasileiro que tivesse mais de 100 mil dólares lá fora tinha que informar o BC todos os anos. Com a portaria, esse valor subiu para 1 milhão de dólares – uma mudança que, dizem os especialistas, reduziu a transparência dos investimentos de brasileiros no exterior. Não se sabe o volume de recursos que Campos Neto mantinha em sua offshore quando a fechou. Nos Pandora Papers, não aparece essa informação. Consultado pela piauí, ele não quis informar o valor.

O presidente do BC criou sua offshore quando trabalhava no banco Santander e, para tanto, usou os serviços do escritório Mossack Fonseca, o pivô do escândalo mundial dos Panama Papers. Em sua composição original, a Cor Assets tinha dois diretores (Campos Neto e sua mulher, a advogada Adriana Buccolo de Oliveira), um capital subscrito de 10 mil dólares e uma conta corrente no banco Safra em Luxemburgo, um paraíso fiscal na Europa. Num documento do Mossack Fonseca, o casal explicou que o objetivo da Cor Assets era receber “investimentos em ativos financeiros do Santander private bank”. Assim que o escritório no Panamá enviou a Luxemburgo os documentos para abrir a conta no Safra, o funcionário luxemburguês Jost Dex informou a um colega de trabalho: “Nós destruiremos os documentos e você pode encerrar esse caso.” O sigilo sobre os negócios de seus clientes era a regra número um do Mossack Fonseca e, mesmo assim, tornou-se o epicentro do megavazamento de dados em 2016.

Em julho de 2004, dois meses depois de fundar a Cor Assets, Campos Neto transferiu mais 1,08 milhão de dólares para a conta estrangeira e aumentou significativamente o capital da empresa. Ele disse ao Mossack Fonseca que havia declarado o dinheiro transferido à Receita brasileira. Paralelamente, entre janeiro de 2007 e novembro de 2016, o executivo manteve outra offshore, a ROCN Limited, agora nas Ilhas Virgens Britânicas. A empresa foi criada pelo escritório Trident Trust, o mesmo responsável por abrir a firma de Paulo Guedes. … A revista mandou as mesmas perguntas para o presidente do Banco Central. Em nota, Campos Neto respondeu o seguinte: “As empresas estão declaradas à Receita Federal e foram constituídas há mais de 14 anos com rendimentos obtidos ao longo de 22 anos de trabalho no mercado financeiro, decorrentes, inclusive, de atuação em funções executivas no exterior. Não houve nenhuma remessa de recursos às empresas após minha nomeação para função pública. Desde então, por questões de compliance, não faço investimentos com recursos das empresas. Questões tributárias não são atribuição da minha função pública.”

A reportagem também perguntou a Campos Neto se ele havia informado a Comissão de Ética Pública sobre a existência de sua offshore no Panamá. A resposta foi a seguinte: “A integralidade desse patrimônio, no país e no exterior, está declarada à CEP, à Receita Federal e ao Banco Central, com recolhimento de toda a tributação devida e observância de todas as regras legais e comandos éticos aplicáveis aos agentes públicos.” Nas atas de reuniões da Comissão de Ética Pública, no entanto, não consta nenhum julgamento de processo do presidente do BC. Assim como no caso de Guedes, a comissão recusou-se a dar informações sobre o caso.

Embora ter uma offshore devidamente declarada à Receita não seja ilegal, criá-la nem sempre atende a propósitos republicanos, sobretudo quando a empresa se localiza em paraísos fiscais, onde a tributação é baixa ou até mesmo nula. Além do mais, esses paraísos raramente participam de tratados internacionais e são usados para viabilizar a lavagem de dinheiro oriundo de organizações criminosas e corrupção.

Guedes e Campos Neto não informaram as razões que motivaram seus investimentos. Mas, segundo especialistas consultados pela piauí, quem se utiliza legalmente de offshores em paraísos fiscais costuma ter dois objetivos: blindar seu patrimônio de instabilidades políticas e econômicas e escapar de tributações mais elevadas em seu país de origem, manobra conhecida como elisão fiscal. Tudo é feito sob o máximo sigilo. Primeiro, cria-se a empresa atrelada a uma conta no exterior, normalmente aberta em bancos de países com economia sólida, como a Suíça e os Estados Unidos. A partir dessa conta, investe-se em companhias e fundos estrangeiros de maneira direta, sem que os rendimentos sobre o capital investido sejam tributados imediatamente no Brasil.Em termos práticos, um investidor que aporta 1 milhão de reais num fundo de ações no Brasil e obtém ganhos de 100 mil reais ao longo de um ano deve declarar para o Fisco não apenas o seu patrimônio como a sua rentabilidade e ser tributado por isso anualmente. Já um investidor que possui uma empresa nas Ilhas Virgens Britânicas pode fazer o mesmo investimento em fundos de ações no exterior e não pagar nenhum imposto por lá, uma vez que a maioria dos paraísos fiscais não tributa o capital na fonte. A mordida do Leão ocorrerá, portanto, somente quando – e se – o dinheiro chegar ao país onde o dono reside. A remessa legal de dinheiro para o exterior sofre tributação mínima. Paga-se 0,38% de Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras (IOF) mais a tarifa bancária, que pode ser nula, dependendo do cliente.

[never-was-has-been]

Facebook discussion comments: James: "They will certainly try. But this is so personal for Dominion's founder that I think he is going to insist on accountability over money. I hope so anyway." Wayne: "Hell no. Dominion isn't going to let them settle. This is the perfect storm to take Fox to court and expose their main role in trying to overthrow the united states, designate them as national enemies and ban them from the airwaves of America if all they're gonna do is try to do it again. DO NOT give them the chance."

Rick White reply to Wayne: My prediction is that it will not turn out to be a total evisceration of the Fox Network or of Rupert Murdoch. It'll be some sort of 'settlement' and/or it will result in a "rebranding" effort by Murdoch's management, even to the point of renaming it from "Fox" to something else all together. I'm on a "wait & see" watch and it's not my priority, either.

The entire corporate media "club" continues to try and "rebrand" itself as a spokesperson for the common consumer-voter, regardless of what happens in the world that could affect that "rebranding". An example of my point here is the "Panama Papers" scandal. ~source Wikipedia~:

"The Panama Papers are 11.5 million leaked documents (or 2.6 terabytes of data) that were published beginning on April 3, 2016. The papers detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. The documents, some dating back to the 1970s, were created by, and taken from, former Panamanian offshore law firm and corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca, and compiled with similar leaks into a searchable database." ~ This was a Global scandal that unfolded publicly in 2016, 8 months before the election of Trump. The public (those who were interested in understanding this) had very little time to digest the enormity of this scandal and all the corporations, billionaires, banks and governments that were involved, up to their eyebrows, with the global "beyond organized crime" activities that literally shook the world's governments to their core. Then, after Trump was elected (by the electoral college), the Panama Papers disappeared from the news cycle quicker than it appeared. As I have said many many many many times in the past here on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Mastodon and elsewhere: "The PUBLIC is always the Last To Know".

And there's an obvious reason for that: Globally, crime & fascism will continue to OWN the airwaves and the functions of all governments until we as a species self-extinct. Lest anyone thinks that some 'savior' or some extraterrestrial will come and "fix" all of this before it blows up in a mushroom cloud, I politely say what has been said by several people, many times before, "We get the government and the world we deserve, when we do nothing collectively to change it."

[mariacallous]

Bankers found guilty of helping to hide Putin’s millions by Swiss court

Four senior bankers have been found guilty by a Swiss court of helping to launder tens of millions of francs linked personally to president Vladimir Putin through the country’s banking system.

The four — three Russians and one Swiss national — were employees of Gazprombank’s Swiss subsidiary, and include its chief executive.

A Zurich district court ruled on Thursday that they were guilty of financial negligence in failing to perform due diligence on highly suspicious transactions run through the bank.

Conditional criminal fines of between SFr540,000 and SFr48,000 were imposed, which do not have to be paid if parole conditions are kept over the next two years. Prosecutors had sought custodial sentences.

In their case, prosecutors detailed how accounts had been opened at Gazprombank on behalf of Sergei Roldugin, a cellist and the godfather to Putin’s daughter, without questions being raised about how a musician had amassed vast wealth.

Roldugin deposited SFr50mn in Gazprombank’s Swiss accounts, and promised to funnel at least SFr10mn more annually into them through a complex web of shell companies and offshore trusts.

Judge Sebastian Aeppli said it was “beyond doubt” that the money did not belong to Roldugin.

The funds originally flowed from Bank Rossiya, which Swiss prosecutors said was known to be the house bank of the Russian kleptocracy.

“The chair of the board [Yuri Kovalchuk] is considered Putin’s treasurer,” their indictment noted.

The Gazprombank bankers declared that Roldugin was not a “politically exposed person” — a designation that would have triggered additional internal and regulatory scrutiny — and performed a nugatory investigation to back up such assertions, the prosecution said.

The official internal due diligence file on Roldugin contained only a printout of the website for the Mariinsky theatre in St Petersburg — where Roldugin was a conductor — and a single negative search result on Worldcheck, a compliance database. “It is notorious that Russian President Putin officially has an income of just over SFr100,000 and is not wealthy, but in fact has enormous assets managed by people close to him,” prosectors wrote in their indictment. “Roldugin . . . [was] a straw man.”

The four bankers may opt to appeal against the verdict to the cantonal appellate court. A further appeal would then be possible on the federal level.

The case was triggered as a result of the Panama Papers leak in 2016, in which a huge cache of documents was disclosed to international media organisations from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth-largest offshore services provider.

Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine and the UK’s Guardian newspaper homed on on accounts they found in the documents under Roldugin’s name.

Shortly afterwards, the Swiss market regulator Finma began an investigation of its own into Gazprombank’s role in the Swiss part of the Roldugin network.

In 2018 the regulator concluded that the bank was “in serious breach of its anti-money laundering due diligence requirements in the period from 2006 to 2016”, and imposed strict penalties.

It also lodged a complaint with cantonal prosecutors in Zurich, triggering the formal criminal investigation.

[v-news]

Tory party treasurer’s brother and business partner was involved in now-banned binary options industry

The brother and business partner of new Tory party co-treasurer Ehud Sheleg, was involved in a company promoting a controversial online investment industry that was later associated with serious fraud.

Private Eye and The Times of Israel has found that for three years, Ehud’s brother Ran was part of a company that marketed binary options – an industry largely run out of Israel.

Binary options were promoted as a form of financial product to thousands of investors around the world, but their sale was halted by European and Israeli regulators last year when it was found that the industry was rife with fraud.

A senior Israeli police officer said in 2017 “binary options caused Israel’s crime organisations to become significantly stronger”

Ran Sheleg, an Israeli, was a partner in a website binaryaffiliates.com which aimed to make money from promoting binary options brokers who were in some cases even telling investors they could learn to almost double their investments within an hour.

Regulators in various countries around the world would later issue serious warnings about a number of these brokers.

Mr Sheleg, 60, strongly denies he knew anything about fraudulent practice in the industry until the binary options scandal erupted years after he ended his association with binaryaffiliates.com.

he made no profits from binaryaffiliates.com, which he described as a failure. There is no suggestion he committed any fraud.

His brother and business partner, Ehud – one of the Tories’ biggest donors and appointed the party’s co-treasurer and financial gatekeeper last summer – strongly denied any knowledge of binaryaffiliates.com.

He said he had no involvement at all with the website and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by him.

His brother’s involvement in the binary options industry from 2009 until 2012 was established after a wider ranging investigation by Private Eye, The Times of Israel into Ehud’s Mayfair-headquartered Halcyon Gallery, an exclusive art dealership that boasts of close ties to the Royal Family and the Conservative Party.

Ehud, a 63 year old also known as Udi, runs the gallery. It is 50% controlled through a British Virgin Islands company by the Tov Settlement, the Sheleg family trust. Ran Sheleg is the “co-protector” and one of 12 beneficiaries of that trust. Ehud is also a beneficiary.

Ran denied he and his brother were business partners but then added that Ehud had appointed him as director of Halcyon Art International Ltd, a Hong Kong company.

And it was from this company that Ran Sheleg sent a series of emails that would later reveal his involvement in the binary options industry.

The emails, written in 2012, was discovered in the Panama Papers, a huge leaks of documents from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca that caused international outrage when they were published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in 2016.

Ran’s emails show his dealings with Mossack Fonseca to set up a BVI company for his binary options business. In the emails, Ran also said he was ending his association with the business, having been involved with it since late 2009.

The business, binaryaffiliates.com, aimed to make money by encouraging people to invest with various binary options brokers. During Ran’s involvement with it, it promoted brands that were telling investors they could make up to 81% returns rapidly.

Affiliate marketers promoted binary options schemes though blog posts, spam emails and videos promising to reveal the secrets of online trading.

Binaryaffiliates.com was paid a commission for each investor it successfully referred. But in the three years that Ran was involved with it, he said it was a failure and that it generated only £122,000 in gross revenues in total, with £118,000 incurred in direct costs alone. He said he did not make any money personally and nor did he take a salary.

At the time, marketing binary options was perfectly legal.

He also said he was “shocked” to discover a few years later that the industry was rife with fraud.

A year after he ended his involvement with the business, one brand, AnyOption, was put on a warning list by regulators in Quebec.

Another brand promoted by binaryaffiliates.com, OptionRally, was also promoted by US citizen Michael Shah, who is currently being prosecuted for fraud by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission in the US. In an online chatroom in 2014, Shah described the brands he was promoting as “100% BS [bullshit]”.

Also during the time Ran was involved with binaryaffiliates.com, it promoted at least one brand that used the Spot Option trading platform. Last year, a US grand jury indictment against Jared Davis, a US citizen who ran a binary options scheme which used the Spot Option platform, described Spot Option as “fraudulent”.

In 2010, Binaryaffiliates.com also promoted EZTrader which later became the “official Binary Options Trading Partner” for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

EZTrader was fined $1.7m by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2016. The SEC fine was for misleading potential investors. The SEC stated at the time that fewer than 3% of US citizens investing with EZTrader made any profit on the site.

Ran Sheleg told “For a limited period of time (the end of 2009 – 2012), I invested and was involved in an online business marketing binary options. This was at a time when no one was aware of misconduct in the industry which sadly has subsequently come to light.

“I was not aware of the misconduct nor did I have any involvement. Binary Affiliates had next to no revenue, lost money and was closed in 2013.

“At no time did my brother, Udi, have any involvement whatsoever and any attempt to link him is desperate and utterly scurrilous.”

Binary options trading was banned in Israel in early 2018, after Gabi Biton, Superintendent of the Israel Police, had made a bombshell speech about the industry to a committee of MPs in the country’s Knesset parliament the year before.

“Our eyes have been opened,” the police officer had said. “What we’re seeing here is a massive organised criminal enterprise. We are talking about criminals at various levels of crime organisations, up to the very top.

“Binary options caused Israel’s crime organisations to become significantly stronger,” he added.

In the UK, victims reported losses of £59m, with the scale of the fraud likely to be much larger.

Months after the trade was banned outright in Israel, regulators across Europe banned the sale to retail investors.

When questioned about the binary options business by Tory co-treasurer Ehud Sheleg said he had been completely unaware of the company in which his brother had been involved.

He strongly denied any money from the binary options business had been invested in the Halcyon Gallery, an art dealership that has catapulted him into the social circles of the British Establishment.

The gallery, fuelled by an influx of international money into the London art market, has seen exceptional growth in the past decade.

Latest company accounts available on Companies House show a turnover of £88m last year, up from £38m in 2010.

The Sheleg family, through a British Virgin Islands company and a family trust, bought a 50% share in the Halcyon Gallery in 1998 when it was a Birmingham-based art dealership.

The gallery sponsors events at Buckingham Palace, and has co-hosted a party with Princess Eugenie. It also sponsors an annual charity polo match, where Princes William and Harry have played for the Halcyon Gallery team.

Another focus of Halcyon’s strategic generosity has been the Conservative Party. When Boris Johnson was London mayor, the gallery in New Bond Street hosted a drinks party for the Mayor’s charity, the Mayor’s Fund for London.

Halcyon started directly funding the Conservatives in 2010, but shortly before the 2017 general election, Ehud started donating personally – and in huge amounts. Over the past two years he has donated £1.88m to the party’s stretched coffers. His generosity was rewarded last year when Theresa May formally appointed him party co-treasurer.

Both Ran and Ehud deny that Ran has any involvement in the Halcyon’s UK business. Ran Sheleg categorically stated that he was not a business partner of Ehud. But corporate filings suggest he plays an important role in Halcyon’s affairs.

In addition to being the protector of the trust which owns the Sheleg family’s share of the Halcyon Gallery in the UK, he was appointed as a director of Halcyon Art International by Ehud Sheleg. He is also a director of Halcyon’s Shanghai company alongside his brother, and sources say he has been a frequent visitor to the gallery in London.

During the research for this article, Ehud Sheleg provided a series of background observations and comments but when asked for an on the record quote prior to publication, he instructed lawyers from Farrer & Co.

[slovozanami]

3 громких журналистских расследования современности

Журналистские расследования – один из самых действенных инструментов в борьбе с коррупцией, преступностью и злоупотреблением властью. 

Мы составили для вас подборку интересных расследований современности. 

1. "Панамские документы" – утечка 11,5 млн файлов из панамской юридической фирмы Mossack Fonseca; благодаря ей были раскрыты схемы ухода от налогов мировых лидеров и знаменитостей.

2. Изобличение харассмента в Голливуде: расследование The New York Times и The New Yorker о сексуальных домогательствах со стороны продюсера Харви Вайнштейна положило начало движению #MeToo и вызвало волну обвинений в адрес вли��тельных лиц в индустрии развлечений.

3. As mensagens secretas da Lava Jato ("Секретные сообщения операции "Автомойка"). Расследование журнала The Intercept Brazil о взятках было проведено на основе утечки переписки из мессенджера Telegram. Это расследование привело к аресту бывшего президента Бразилии Луиса Инасиу Лулы да Силвы по обвинениям в коррупции.

Эти и многие другие проекты демонстрируют нам значимость журналистики в современном мире. 

[noticlip]

Apelan la sentencia que absolvió a todos los acusados de los Papeles de Panamá

 El Ministerio Público (Fiscalía) de Panamá informó este viernes que apeló la sentencia que absolvió a los 28 acusados de blanqueo de capitales por el caso de los Papeles de Panamá, la histórica filtración de documentos del extinto bufete panameño Mossack Fonseca. «#Recurso | La Fiscalía Segunda contra la Delincuencia Organizada anunció ante el Juzgado Segundo Liquidador de Causas Penales…

[alaturkanews]

Todos os 28 arguidos do processo de fraude fiscal “Panama Papers” foram absolvidos

Oito anos após a divulgação da base de dados conhecida como “Panama Papers” da sociedade de advogados panamiana Mossack-Fonseca, o tribunal deliberou a absolvição dos 28 arguidos. De acordo com a argumentação do tribunal competente da Cidade do Panamá, as provas não eram suficientes para condenar os arguidos, acusados, entre outras coisas, de branqueamento de capitais através da criação de…

[kcntime]

Imputan cargos a directivos vinculados al escándalo Mossack Fonseca

La Fiscalía General de la Nación formuló cargos contra las hermanas Manuela y Amalia Sierra Gutiérrez, representantes legales de la empresa textilera MAS, junto con su revisor fiscal, Lader Augusto Madrigal Múnera, y su contadora, Diana Carolina Rojas Vargas, por los delitos de enriquecimiento ilícito y falsedad en documento privado.

La investigación está siendo coordinada por un fiscal adscrito a la Dirección Especializada contra el Lavado de Activos, quien avanzó en la recolección de pruebas contra este grupo de indiciados.

Según la Fiscalía, la compañía textilera habría contactado en Colombia a la firma panameña Mossack Fonseca con el fin de que esta le entregara documentos que acreditaran la realización de un estudio de mercadeo, para que la empresa pudiera incrementar sus ventas en el extranjero.

De acuerdo con los investigadores, a cambio de estos documentos falsos se presume que MAS pagó el 3,5 por ciento del valor del contrato suscrito en enero de 2013, el cual equivalía a 6.440 dólares.

El fiscal del caso indicó que, con base en esos costos asociados al contrato falso, la empresa disminuyó la base gravable y por lo tanto pagó un impuesto menor a la Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales (DIAN).

Los investigadores enfatizaron que, de ser hallados responsables de estos delitos, los directivos de la empresa textilera podrían pagar una pena de entre nueve y 19 de años de prisión.