#swiss banking lawyers

[sauntervaguelydown]

TWO YEARS AGO, by a series of strange coincidences, I found myself attending a garden party at Westminster Abbey. I was a bit uncomfortable. It’s not that other guests weren’t pleasant and amicable, and Father Graeme, who had organized the party, was nothing if not a gracious and charming host. But I felt more than a little out of place. At one point, Father Graeme intervened, saying that there was someone by a nearby fountain whom I would certainly want to meet. She turned out to be a trim, well-appointed young woman who, he explained, was an attorney—“but more of the activist kind. She works for a foundation that provides legal support for anti-poverty groups in London. You’ll probably have a lot to talk about.”

We chatted. She told me about her job. I told her I had been involved for many years with the global justice movement—“anti-globalization movement,” as it was usually called in the media. She was curious: she’d of course read a lot about Seattle, Genoa, the tear gas and street battles, but … well, had we really accomplished anything by all of that?

“Actually,” I said, “I think it’s kind of amazing how much we did manage to accomplish in those first couple of years.”

“For example?”

“Well, for example, we managed to almost completely destroy the IMF.”

As it happened, she didn’t actually know what the IMF was, so I offered that the International Monetary Fund basically acted as the world’s debt enforcers—“You might say, the high-finance equivalent of the guys who come to break your legs.” I launched into historical background, explaining how, during the ’70s oil crisis, OPEC countries ended up pouring so much of their newfound riches into Western banks that the banks couldn’t figure out where to invest the money; how Citibank and Chase therefore began sending agents around the world trying to convince Third World dictators and politicians to take out loans (at the time, this was called “go-go banking”); how they started out at extremely low rates of interest that almost immediately skyrocketed to 20 percent or so due to tight U.S. money policies in the early ’80s; how, during the ’80s and ’90s, this led to the Third World debt crisis; how the IMF then stepped in to insist that, in order to obtain refinancing, poor countries would be obliged to abandon price supports on basic foodstuffs, or even policies of keeping strategic food reserves, and abandon free health care and free education; how all of this had led to the collapse of all the most basic supports for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth.

I spoke of poverty, of the looting of public resources, the collapse of societies, endemic violence, malnutrition, hopelessness, and broken lives.

“But what was your position?” the lawyer asked.

“About the IMF? We wanted to abolish it.”

“No, I mean, about the Third World debt.”

“Oh, we wanted to abolish that too. The immediate demand was to stop the IMF from imposing structural adjustment policies, which were doing all the direct damage, but we managed to accomplish that surprisingly quickly. The more long-term aim was debt amnesty. Something along the lines of the biblical Jubilee. As far as we were concerned,” I told her, “thirty years of money flowing from the poorest countries to the richest was quite enough.”

“But,” she objected, as if this were self-evident, “they’d borrowed the money! Surely one has to pay one’s debts.”

It was at this point that I realized this was going to be a very different sort of conversation than I had originally anticipated. Where to start? I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who placed most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children. Or to think about how many of these poor countries had actually already paid back what they’d borrowed three or four times now, but that through the miracle of compound interest, it still hadn’t made a significant dent in the principal. […]

But there was a more basic problem: the very assumption that debts have to be repaid. Actually, the remarkable thing about the statement “one has to pay one’s debts” is that even according to standard economic theory, it isn’t true. A lender is supposed to accept a certain degree of risk. If all loans, no matter how idiotic, were still retrievable—if there were no bankruptcy laws, for instance—the results would be disastrous. What reason would lenders have not to make a stupid loan?

[…] For several days afterward, that phrase kept resonating in my head. “Surely one has to pay one’s debts.” The reason it’s so powerful is that it’s not actually an economic statement: it’s a moral statement. After all, isn’t paying one’s debts what morality is supposed to be all about? Giving people what is due them. Accepting one’s responsibilities. Fulfilling one’s obligations to others, just as one would expect them to fulfill their obligations to you. What could be a more obvious example of shirking one’s responsibilities than reneging on a promise, or refusing to pay a debt?

It was that very apparent self-evidence, I realized, that made the statement so insidious. This was the kind of line that could make terrible things appear utterly bland and unremarkable. This may sound strong, but it’s hard not to feel strongly about such matters once you’ve witnessed the effects. I had. For almost two years, I had lived in the highlands of Madagascar. Shortly before I arrived, there had been an outbreak of malaria. It was a particularly virulent outbreak because malaria had been wiped out in highland Madagascar many years before, so that, after a couple of generations, most people had lost their immunity. The problem was, it took money to maintain the mosquito eradication program, since there had to be periodic tests to make sure mosquitoes weren’t starting to breed again and spraying campaigns if it was discovered that they were. Not a lot of money. But owing to IMF-imposed austerity programs, the government had to cut the monitoring program. Ten thousand people died. I met young mothers grieving for lost children. One might think it would be hard to make a case that the loss of ten thousand human lives is really justified in order to ensure that Citibank wouldn’t have to cut its losses on one irresponsible loan that wasn’t particularly important to its balance sheet anyway. But here was a perfectly decent woman—one who worked for a charitable organization, no less—who took it as self-evident that it was. After all, they owed the money, and surely one has to pay one’s debts.

Debt, the First 5000 Years

[random-thought-depository]

""Moreover, it turns out that the United States is not all that tightfisted when it comes to social spending. “If you count all public benefits offered by the federal government, America’s welfare state (as a share of its gross domestic product) is the second biggest in the world, after France’s,” Desmond tells us. Why doesn’t this largesse accomplish more?

For one thing, it unduly assists the affluent. That statistic about the U.S. spending almost as much as France on social welfare, he explains, is accurate only “if you include things like government-subsidized retirement benefits provided by employers, student loans and 529 college savings plans, child tax credits, and homeowner subsidies: benefits disproportionately flowing to Americans well above the poverty line.” To enjoy most of these, you need to have a well-paying job, a home that you own, and probably an accountant (and, if you’re really in clover, a money manager).

“The American government gives the most help to those who need it least,” Desmond argues. “This is the true nature of our welfare state, and it has far-reaching implications, not only for our bank accounts and poverty levels, but also for our psychology and civic spirit.” Americans who benefit from social spending in the form of, say, a mortgage-interest tax deduction don’t see themselves as recipients of governmental generosity. The boon it offers them may be as hard for them to recognize and acknowledge as the persistence of poverty once was to Harrington’s suburban housewives and professional men. These Americans may be anti-government and vote that way. They may picture other people, poor people, as weak and dependent and themselves as hardworking and upstanding. Desmond allows that one reason for this is that tax breaks don’t feel the same as direct payments. Although they may amount to the same thing for household incomes and for the federal budget—“You can benefit a family by lowering its tax burden or by increasing its benefits, same difference”—they are associated with an obligation and a procedure that Americans, in particular, find onerous. Tax-cutting Republican lawmakers want the process to be both difficult and Swiss-cheesed with loopholes. (“Taxes should hurt,” Ronald Reagan once said.) But that’s not the only reason. What Desmond calls the “rudest explanation” is that if, for whatever reason, we get a tax break, most of us like it. That’s the case for people affluent and lucky enough to take advantage of the legitimate breaks designed for their benefit, and for the wily super-rich who game the system with expensive lawyering and ingenious use of tax shelters.

And there are other ways, Desmond points out, that government help gets thwarted or misdirected. When President Clinton instituted welfare reform, in 1996, pledging to “transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence,” an older model, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or A.F.D.C., was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. Where most funds administered by A.F.D.C. went straight to families in the form of cash aid, TANF gave grants to states with the added directive to promote two-parent families and discourage out-of-wedlock childbirth, and let the states fund programs to achieve those goals as they saw fit. As a result, “states have come up with rather creative ways to spend TANF dollars,” Desmond writes. “Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents. Only Kentucky and the District of Columbia spent over half of their TANF funds on basic cash assistance.” Between 1999 and 2016, Oklahoma directed more than seventy million dollars toward initiatives to promote marriage, offering couples counselling and workshops that were mostly open to people of all income levels. Arizona used some of the funds to pay for abstinence education; Pennsylvania gave some of its TANF money to anti-abortion programs. Mississippi treated its TANF funds as an unexpected Christmas present, hiring a Christian-rock singer to perform at concerts, for instance, and a former professional wrestler—the author of an autobiography titled “Every Man Has His Price”—to deliver inspirational speeches. (Much of this was revealed by assiduous investigative reporters, and by a 2020 audit of Mississippi’s Department of Human Services.) Moreover, because states don’t have to spend all their TANF funds each year, many carry over big sums. In 2020, Tennessee, which has one of the highest child-poverty rates in the nation, left seven hundred and ninety million dollars in TANF funds unspent."

- The New Yorker: "How America Manufactures Poverty" by Margaret Talbot (review of Matthew Desmond's Poverty by America).

[barryogg]

On Democracy

A recent post made me think about finally writing an effortpoast from a series that's been bouncing around my head for years.

What does it mean to Believe in Democracy? Because, uh, I don't think I do.

If I would, I think it would mean something like this: I am a citizen, and I have sort of a partial share of the country. I am able to identify my interests and causes that are important to me, and I want to redirect my share of governance towards those interests and causes. Constant direct voting is cumbersome and costly. (Is it? The Swiss manage it. We may get to it later.) So I look for reasonably like-minded people to band with in a party, and get representatives.

As in, people who represent me. As in, people who are my subjects. Who are supposed to defer to us. And if they don't represent my interests and causes I owe them jack shit.

It seems that the median person has this relation inverted almost exactly. Instead of treating politicians like they're public's servants, they treat them like celebrities! Like movie stars, Taylor Swift (I'd say "music stars" here, but she's the last remaining western one) or top sportsmen. They think that the public has an obligation to the political class, that the public owes them to vote in certain ways that'll give certain politicians more power.

Politicians who act like they're kowtowing to the public's most voiced demands are called "populists", and I'm led to believe that it's a bad thing that we're supposed to minimize.

So I don't know what is it that you people believe, but it sure doesn't look like what I would call "democracy".

Step 2: ??? Step 3: Policy!

The usual way people try to square this circle is pointing that nobody can be a completely informed voter. Economy is fractally complicated, therefore you can't intuit your economic interests! Biology if fractally complicated, therefor you can't know what's good for your health! Etc.

The thing is, how are politicians supposed to be better at that than genpop? By education, they're primarily lawyers, i.e. people who operate in the symbolic space to get what they want from a bureaucratic system, and not in any object-level knowledge domain. Map, not territory. The typical answer to that is that the domain knowledge is supposed to come from either "experts" or policy wonks.

But even if we assume: that the median voter cannot be informed about their best interest, that the experts interfacing with politicians operate not with their immediate interests in mind, but with the goal of allowing the politicians to make the best decisions (ahahaha), and that the politicians listen to the wonks and experts to the best of their ability (ohohoho).

Even if we assume all that, how are the voters (who we've established as not informed) are supposed to know which politicians to trust? At which point of the process the not-knowledge is supposed to be transmuted into knowledge and expertise?

If only the emperor knew!

But sometimes there are discrepancies large enough that they can't be explained away by parts of the public not knowing what's good for them. Things like banks not being allowed to fail in wake of a financial crisis, or Disney getting another copyright extension. In that case, it's because democracy has been corrupted, you see. It cannot be that a system may be suitable for governing 300 thousand people (Iceland, which managed to basically expel the banks after the crisis, or so I'm told) but less so for governing 300 million people. Not, the system is flawless, definitionally flawless! The flaws mean we've strayed from true democracy, towards corrupted one!

And then sometimes you get a mix of the two, when the corruption exists because some voters (who don't know what's good for them) have been deceived by the Evil party and are voting against their interests. They cannot possibly have different fundamental irreducible values which are split 40+%/40+% in the population because obviously my values are the only correct ones, and true democracy would mean tiling the country with my values.

(Dropping the snark for a moment and being explicit: if you believe something that's even passably familiar to the above paragraph, and if you want to centralize the bureaucracy e.g. by removing the US senate, you don't actually value democracy. Never have, never will, and it would do us all some good if you dropped the façade.)

...except for all the others that have been tried

Surprise! Despite all that, I'm still glad that I'm living in (some approximation of) democracy. This is an inversion from my teenage edgelord years, where I believed in the democracy but nonetheless wanted to supplant it with something more efficient. I like it now because there's a huge upside: peaceful transfer of power. But as the (social media-induced? that's the leading hypothesis, right?) gap between values widens, that center may not hold in the future.

So what do I want? These are all a bit pie-in-the-sky, but:

I want people who are softly authoritarian to be honest with themselves (obviously won't happen because they have a tremendous amount of energy invested in not thinking about themselves as authoritarians, but sill, putting this out there)

I want people to turn off fandom brain when thinking about politics. Have a healthy dose of disdain for politicians on your "team".

Decentralization! Direct representation! Switzerland has direct voting about tons of stuff, and it works! Cantons' population ranges from 1.5 million to 16 thousand, so they can vote on things that matter to them without intermediate assholes inserting themselves into the situation.

Fuck first-past-the-post! Let's do ranked voting! Down with thresholds, let's have 50 parties in each parliament! "But that would severely disrupt the process of passing new laws and regulations!" Precisely.

Sortition! Because why the hell not, the current system of career politics is an industrial-strength asshole filter, random people would genuinely improve the situation.

If I were good at writing essays, there would be a sentence here that ties everything together. But I'm not.

[belle--ofthebrawl]

Belle you keep teasing us with the hell on wheels au and I am here to beg most politely for some tiny crumbs. What is this treat you have cooking up for us in your big big brain????

Well...the explanation is very long but basically Augh Motorcycle Helmets Big Sexy.

So it's just Vibes at this point but grew into something more, especially after @miasmaghoul posted about mechanic Cirrus fucking Swiss. I adopted that immediately into what is now known as the Hell On Wheels Au, the barebones of which have been rattling around in my brain for about a year but exploded with thoughts quite recently.

The Ghouls are a Satanist Biker Gang that fully leans into the aesthetic, party at bars and get into fights but during the daytime? They rev their motorcycles and stand in court rooms as kids testify against their abusers. They work in partnership with local community support groups, have domestic violence flyers up in bathrooms, even have their own local version of an Angel Shot called a Devil Shot where one will pick you up from the bar if you've been roofied and takes you to the hospital while another hunts down the lowlife who did it and gives them a little talking to. Violence isn't usually involved since they have a reputation but they're fond of saying they never forget a face. Interpret that how you will.

This all evolved from a Vibes Based Daydream I had where Dew's bike broke down so he had to be Ifrit's backpack. And when they pull up at a red light, Ifrit's old chapter leader Alpha is there and he tells Dew "Killswitch him, it'll be payback for (something completely fucking made up)" EXCEPT when Dew hops off and turns the key to shut down the bike, the light turns green and Ifrit hollers something at Dew before popping a wheelie and racing away, leaving Dew to sweat nervously in the fish bowl distortion of his own reflection in the helmet glaring down at him.

"Get on." Alpha says gruffly and Dew seriously contemplates running before Alpha revs his bike again and growls "you run and you're fucking out." Because their whole thing is facing consequences, right?? So Dew's his passenger princess and Alpha takes him out of town on a backroad to a tall grassy knoll where Dew thinks he's going to be buried and parks his bike.

He meets the bookkeeper, a hulking retired boxer known in his glory days as Omega and they chat as Alpha looms threateningly in the background.

Notes: Swiss and Ifrit ride 1000cc sports bikes whereas I'm going for a more classical, solid build for Alpha. Or a chopper. Can't decide.

"This is all I have." I said to Miasma, but it proved to be a lie as my brain is forever a hamster running desperately on a wheel.

Swiss harasses the corrupt police force (defroque is the sheriff's son??) with Ifrit and Sunny, they do a lot of night rides with no plates and lead them in goose chases after triggering speed traps. Drop a gear and disappear, baby.

Aether does a lot of charity stuff and mostly works with local food banks to be a one man Meal on Wheels (ok...yup. get it out) for elderly and disabled folks. He dreams of owning a food truck with his buddy Mountain but right now he's happy to show up to court with a saddlebag of whatever he thinks that little tyke might appreciate or need.

Mountain is the son of a local cafe owner Terra, who was quite the hell raiser in her heyday but now is content to enjoy her retirement with her partners, Ivy (agoraphobic landscaper) and Pebble (weed dealer). He has a sidecar he brings Rain and Zephyr to work in. Rain's got a fruity little scarf.

Aeon as the new kid in town working two jobs to afford a bike of his own, Imperator as a lawyer/ex pinup model because learning is expensive. Copia is her assistant/son determined to make his mother proud but also can't help but wonder why exactly she chose to work in this distant town and what her relationship is to that decrepit old man sitting in the park, feeding the birds from his wheelchair and seems to know an odd amount of detail about a certain tricycle, hidden away in the depths of the shed. Copia doesn't like talking to him. Nihil knows too much and yet, can't remember anything at all.

Aurora is someone who prefers to pedal around town on her old mountain bike, vlogging her downright dangerous escapades that make seasoned motorcyclists sweat (motocross? BMX? She just likes her old bike. She does delivery for local restaurants and is a living legend in delivery times. Aeon's also into free running/parkour/skateboarding and they have a friendly...? competition over completion times.

Cirrus restores cars as a hobby and is a mechanic with Cumulus, who specializes in paint jobs on top handling the books and stock. Swiss loves it when she fucks him Amazon style on her prize restoration car (model make and year TBD) and he tells her about this little delivery biker who popped a forward wheelie on the other side of a red light, did something complicated that involved walking on her front wheel and stepping on the pedals before setting the bike frame easily back down and pedalling calmly past Swiss. Cirrus knows her of course, but Swiss hasn't earned that knowledge yet. Or his orgasm.

Sunny works in the shop too as an apprentice.

Cumulus likes to flirt with Mist, who owns the local dirt track. "As much as anyone can own a dirt field." Mist says. She's a water-skier, wheels aren't her preferred mode of speed.

The Emeritus family crossed over from Italy sometime in the last couple centuries. Ask anyone and they'll tell you where the real power in the city lies, with the unholy Trinity of the three offspring. But here, see, that's on the down low, see? One of them has to be Papa Emeritus, that enigmatic and rarely seen figure, who takes care of people who put their faith in him and that's more than the local priest ever does. Funny how that church building gets fancier and fancier every year while Mrs. Abernathy down the street can't even afford her medical bills. You know they're holding a fundraiser to build a heated hallway from the rectory to the church because Defroque slipped and fell on the ice last winter and now he's whining about needing a safe path to the building?

Be a real shame if something happened to all that money. Can you imagine Father Jim slipping every Sunday? Not that he's stable any other day of the week, mind you. I get the feeling, those prayers retreats of his....Mmm. but that's just gossip.

Ah well. You know, this is a quiet little town when all those bikers aren't revving their engines. But there's stories to be found in it, if you're willing to wait and be patient. Good things, and all that.

[mariacallous]

Editor's note: This is a translation of a piece that was originally published in German in Martin Meyer and Georg Häsler (eds.), “Sicherheitspolitik Schweiz: Strategie eines globalisierten Kleinstaats,” (Zürich: Schweizerisches Institut für Auslandsforschung, February 2024).

It is not difficult to list the contributions that Switzerland could make to Europe’s security; what is more interesting is the question of why it should do so. But one thing at a time.

Recently, Swiss journalist Roger de Weck told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung that his country is “the niche […] where things happen that are forbidden elsewhere.” The Swiss criminal law professor and corruption hunter Mark Pieth describes this somewhat whimsically as the “pirates’ harbor.” The aspects of Swiss politics they are referring to are well-known and regularly scrutinized in the established Swiss media. Their critique goes well beyond an understanding of neutrality that is increasingly alienating Switzerland’s neighbors and which—by way of example—prohibits even democratic neighbors from passing on armaments produced by former Swiss companies to a Ukraine fighting against a brutal aggressor.

Switzerland, which likes to see itself as a storm-tossed island of the blessed, is in reality the world’s largest (and very tolerant) offshore financial center. It has long been a hub for the global commodities trade and a huge magnet for seemingly endless flows of less-than-licit data, money, goods, and people that make up the dark underbelly of globalization. All of this is served by a dense and anything-but-transparent network of lawyers, consultants, and brokers.

Even before the Russian attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, this state of affairs was a nuisance to many other states. But in the context of Europe’s greatest security crisis since 1945, it allows the Kremlin to undermine Western sanctions (which Switzerland is at least participating in), thereby potentially prolonging the war. In geo-economic terms, this makes Switzerland a critical vulnerability in Europe’s security policy.

There are plenty of concrete proposals to close this security gap. Switzerland could create a supervisory authority for commodities trading; or even better, become part of international monitoring efforts. The G7 countries and the European Union would like to see Switzerland make more of an effort to close loopholes in the prosecution of sanctions-breakers; they are also calling for Bern to join the international REPO (Russian Elites, Proxies and Oligarchs) task force, which tracks down Russian kleptocrats’ hidden assets. After all, the Swiss Bankers Association itself estimates that at least 150 billion Swiss francs (approximately $171 billion) of Russian assets are held in Swiss accounts.

That leaves the question of why. Swiss media have a rather conspicuous habit of theorizing about “enormous pressure” from abroad. It is a bit reminiscent of Berlin, where policymakers or politicians often invoke “constraints” (circumstances, allies, norms) compelling them to act. And the Swiss banking secret was indeed brought down by the U.S. Treasury a decade ago.

And yet why would such a rich and powerful country, one of the 20 largest economies in the world and currently a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, pretend that it is so much smaller and weaker than it is? Especially since Switzerland, unlike Germany, has elevated the principle of neutrality—the freedom not to take sides—to a raison d’etre. The contradiction is obvious.

Perhaps it is time for Bern to rethink the prerequisites for freedom of action in an age of strategic competition, a disintegrating world order, and the formation of blocs between democratic and autocratic powers. Switzerland is, of course, not an island, but rather a global player in a world economy that is becoming increasingly interdependent. It is also exposed to the weaponization of interdependence. Some might now point out that Switzerland is a passive beneficiary of the order of peace, law, and prosperity protected by NATO and the EU in Europe. But as a non-member, it has no voice or veto in the circle of these friends; it is a rule taker, not a rule maker.

NATO and the EU initially closed ranks against the impact of Russia’s aggression—which is directed not just at Ukraine but at the entire European order. Yet in light of the fact that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly finding common ground and that the so-called Global South is by no means taking the side of the victim and its allies, the West is currently on the defensive. And should Donald Trump or a Trumpist win the U.S. elections in November 2024, Europe would be quite lonely in the world—and Switzerland with it.

Will that propel Switzerland to suddenly seek protection in alliances or the EU? Or to eliminate its geo-economic vulnerabilities in order to offer Europe’s opponents one fewer entry point? Hardly. But the notion that its exposure is a national security gap and should be closed in the interests of its own freedom of action has just become rather more plausible.

[bastardblvd]

stepfather, please forgive me for i have sinned... 🧎🏻‍♀️ i didn't send in the two asks i was meant to (i'll send in the other soon). anyways, here's some more Grimetown Lore™ that was left marinating in my overcooked peanut-sized noggin.

i present to you, lawyer!Hiromi 🙌🏼

i can't remember when this came to me, but i was just thinking, imagine lawyer!Hiromi is the ONLY lawyer Grimetown has (the only one they need considering it's Grimetown). think of him as their very own Saul Goodman, just not as slimy; he's a good man, just fed up with the bullshit his slimeball clients get up to. the guy is honestly a Swiss Army Knife; he's got it ALL covered. from criminal activity to personal injury, real estate to labour law, and even patent law !!

anyways, a typical day for lawyer!Hiromi is representing drug dealer!Naoya at the District Court because, well, self-explanatory; this is all before lunchtime, mind you. then he gets a little lunch break where he eats his neatly cut cucumber sandwich before dealing with freeloader!Toji's trespassing penalty. something, something, he didn't leave Sugar Momma No. 16's property and went back to retrieve something he wasn't meant to... later on, sometime before afternoon tea, he has a meeting with landlord!Sukuna who has failed to meet Health and Safety obligations (there was mould growing in multiple apartments of the various complexes he owns on Bastard Blvd). his day finally ends with a video call with rich boy!Gojo about his possible fraud penalties because of those dodgy eight credit cards he's maxed out (there's probably some investment fraud sprinkled in there).

idk why, but i picture him driving a hearse he bought at the Gojo estate sale. don't ask me why they had a hearse; it's beyond me. also, he and bank teller!Nanami are roommates. i feel like he and bank teller!Nanami would greet each other after a long day at work like this: "I have to tell you what happened today. Gojo _____".

EVERYONE WELCOME THE GOOD LAWYER HIROMI HIGURUMA TO GRIMETOWN! 🗣️ THE IDEA OF HIM HAVING TO COVER ALL THE BASES IS KILLING ME!

hiromi has a few areas of interest but the more subjects he picks up, the less informed he is on them. sure he's kept drug dealer!naoya out of jail (and maybe accepted a few bribes from weed dealer!recovery girl to throw away the damning evidence because fuck is he tired) but good luck getting off scot-free if you're facing charges with exotic animals in grimetown. he's never left the law school phase because he's frantically studying some new law he's never even heard of the night before the trial.

[wardogsong]

@brooklynislandgirl continued from: x

“Yeah? Just sayin'. Wouldn't really recommend dancing with uh, with dog kickers.” It is a bitter and petulant grumble underneath his breath, soon covered by the way he reaches for the coffee she has brought him and gone through much risk to make available to him. A quiet but intentional slurp makes it so he almost didn't say a thing-- or maybe it just punctuates the matter. Juvenile. But there he is. Petty and taking that opening about her not dating much to crusade against the last gang he'd taken on in particular. What this lady did or didn't do with her love life was her own business-- he had no cause to comment; but he'd sure as fuck turn into one of those political smear commercials against the Irish over their treatment of Max.

And now not for the first time he sinks into wondering what became of that beautiful gray pittie he'd taken off of them-- the Devil hadn't been bothered with getting her out, though in Frank's opinion she needed and deserved the casevac more than his sorry ass did. He'd been done. Done. Done with the list, done with the mission, done and ready to stop-- to let go of his aching bones and the rage that kept them walking. The bastard just hadn't been good enough to let him go and given his earlier visit without the horns? Frank understands why. He means to make him pay for what he's done-- take the lethal injection off the table and toss him into a prison to rot. Frank respects the spite, if not the lawyer behind it.

Her questions bring him back around, though he stalls answering them for a beat with sips of coffee black as he likes and relishing the warmth it spreads through him. “Heh... Wh-- y'think I-I-I was settin' up some offshore Swiss kinda bank account? One a them, what do you call 'ems, 401-K's? Retire pretty south of the border after I cleaned up?” He can't help but scoff at the idea. Such a thought never took a stroll through his head, though money had become stupid available the more gangster bodies he put down. He'd never taken more than he needed for gas and resupply-- paltry dollars that fit in one pocket; leaving behind neatly rubber banded stacks of so much more. Of course, belatedly, he remembers that she's trying to take this info off of him for the lawyers and it sets him straight on being a little more cooperative with the actual details.

“It was bait. I took the money off the Kitchen Irish to make 'em chase me-- make 'em start turning over stones. Either they'd find me or I'd find them looking for me, but the meet-up was gonna happen regardless. And it did. Only I didn't have their money on me. I-I parked it in a van, bumfuck nowhere, stashed it there. Rigged it too, so when they opened it up it blasted them all to hell." As for the rest? Well. The lawyers knew the rest didn't they-- at least the blonde lady one did. She was the one waving around a picture of his family stolen from his home, along with those trumped cop reports of a car accident that never happened.

[swiss-private-banking]

Listen to the Podcast by Enzo Caputo from Swiss Banking Lawyers

Are Swiss Banks in trouble? How safe is your Money with Credit Suisse? Swiss banks are under a frontal attack by the UK and the US media. There is an ongoing defamation campaign against Swiss banks.

Despite attacks against the reputation of the Swiss banks, they are doing great. Since Covid and the war in Ukraine business is booming. Never have Swiss banks attracted so much new money from all over the world as in the last two years.

Based on the example of Credit Suisse you will learn that the money of international investors is protected. The first 100,000 CHF is guaranteed anyway. Only liquidity beyond 100,000 CHF is at risk. All investments can be taken out of the bankruptcy mass of a bank that went bust. If you invest your money in stocks, funds, or bonds, it will not be part of the bankruptcy and remain within the property of the investor.

I am receiving a couple of calls every week from investors asking me about the safety and if they should leave Credit Suisse. I analyze case by case and I give tailor-made answers. A general answer does not exist. In most cases, I will tranquilize the client of Credit Suisse.

My interview partner Mr. Dario Berta is convinced that Credit Suisse will recover next year based on the new strategy. There will be a cut of 9,000 bankers. They will diminish expenditures and increase wealth management activities. The value of the share price is undervalued. The real value of Credit Suisse is 4 to 5 times bigger than the value reflected with a share price of below 4 CHF.

00:00 Intro 01:42 What is the truth about Credit Suisse? 03:10 What is the new strategy of Credit Suisse? 04:43 Why Credit Suisse made losses? 05:01 What are the most famous scandals of Credit Suisse? 06:04 How to judge the low share price of 4 CHF versus the real value of Credit Suisse? 06:25 How much is Credit Suisse worth? 06:45 Who are the Arab investors injecting new capital into Credit Suisse? 07:41 How do you measure the market value of Credit Suisse? 09:35 Will Credit Suisse survive this crisis? 10:35 The Swiss banking industry is booming 11:30 What will be the future of Credit Suisse? 11:50 How many people will lose their job with Credit Suisse? 14:25 What happens to your money if the bank goes bankrupt?

Actually, Credit Suisse stock is undervalued.

📌 Learn more at 👉 swiss-banking-lawyers.com

[f0point5]

Not the Swiss bank account 🤣🤣🤣 you’re not wrong though

Not one lie was told 😂

Zak Brown: We get a 1-2, and you get a call from a Swiss lawyer telling you your distant uncle has die…a very rich uncle

I know Flávio Briatore is just sick that he can’t get in on this action

[thomasbaileyy]

Legal Superpower: The New “Most Feared” U.S. Law Firm Of Josip Heit And GS Partners!

As reported by FinTelegram, the U.S. authorities have taken massive action against Josip Heit and his crypto MLM scheme around GSPartners and Swiss Valorem Bank in recent weeks. A total of 12 U.S. states have issued warnings and cease and desist orders. According to BehindMLM, further investigations by U.S. authorities are also ongoing. Heit has mandated the U.S. law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP to get him out of his U.S. problems.

In a flamboyant display of legal firepower, Josip Heit and his intricate network of enterprises under the GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG (GSB Germany) umbrella have enlisted the superhero legal duo of Alex Spiro and Avi Perry from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. This move comes amid the swirling vortex of state civil regulatory and enforcement proceedings that have been captivating audiences across the United States.

With the drama unfolding, Spiro and Perry have stepped onto the stage, capes billowing in the legal winds, to declare that the allegations against Heit and his corporate empire are mere “unproven accusations.” It appears our protagonists are neither villains in handcuffs nor the subject of any damning final orders in the court of law. Instead, they are poised, ready to collaborate with state authorities in a quest to resolve these thrilling episodes.

Quinn Emanuel, the behemoth behind our legal Avengers, boasts a battalion of over 1,000 lawyers dedicated solely to the art of business litigation and arbitration. With a global network spanning 34 offices, this firm has been crowned the “most feared” law firm in the realm not once, not twice, but thrice—a title that surely sends shivers down the spines of in-house counsel worldwide.

The firm’s battle record is nothing short of legendary, with a win rate that would make even the most stoic of generals envious. When Quinn Emanuel defends, settlements improve, and verdicts trend favorably. When they attack, they’re nearly unstoppable, having secured nearly $80 billion in judgments and settlements. Their trophy case sparkles with nine-figure jury verdicts, ten-figure judgments, and settlements that read like phone numbers.

In their latest quest to defend Heit and his conglomerate, Quinn Emanuel is not just bringing their A-game; they’re bringing an entire alphabet of legal prowess. With accolades like “Litigation Department of the Year,” “International Firm of the Year,” and recognition in every legal arena from banking to IP litigation, it’s clear they’re well-equipped for battle.

So, as the legal saga unfolds, one can’t help but pop the popcorn and settle in for what promises to be an epic tale of litigation and intrigue. Will the legal Avengers manage to navigate the treacherous waters of state regulatory scrutiny? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: with Quinn Emanuel at the helm, we’re in for a blockbuster legal showdown.

[go-scottishgal14]

jumping into the fray here...my observations over the years, having lived and worked in NYC in publishing and investment banking (I was a secretary), I noticed that professional men--bankers, lawyers, etc--were ALWAYS pulled together and looked great, they had the money to shop at Ralph Lauren, their clothing was a sign of their success and their wealth, and $40,000 wristwatches, $60,000 Aspen or Swiss skiing holidays were also part of this show of wealth...when I'd meet their girlfriends or wives at company events, they were always equally attractive, stylishly dressed, toned, etc. , flashing sizeable Ascher-cut diamond engagement rings and wearing outfits I recog-nised from Vogue and Bloomingdale's...a lot of the women did not work but managed the house, did the dinner parties, had the kids, and arranged their social lives--all elements of the men moving up the ranks of business success...some of the men were also contemp-turous of their wives by remarks they'd make on Friday night after-work drinks, which was surprising...MY observations, rightly or wrongly? Successful men view women almost as a commodity -- an extension of themselves, reflective of their own wealth, success and social standing. The women NEEDED to be gorgeous, "in the know" socially speaking, with perfect manners, looks, and conversational abilities...in exchange, many women hooked up with a wealthy successful man for the "perks" he could provide them, the social position, easy life, wealth, travel, etc. so the woman was the "goods" , the commodity, that a man would want: if I provide you with the easy good life, I want a woman on my arm who is breathtaking and gorgeous who will make ME look better because we were together... women looked at (some) men as open check books and men looked at (some) women as arm candy in a quid pro quo set-up...being surrounded by men at the investment bank I worked at, did I ever date anybody? no, because I didn't fit the profile--I was a secretary not a high flying banker, not out of an Ivy league university, a weight problem, and very, very middle class...I was quite happy to watch the hook-ups within the company as I was in a very happy relationship myself, and I was thankful I wasn't viewed as a commodity by my boyfriend...nothing to do with feminism ideology here, just a casual observation of the "dance" that can take place between men and women who each have a secret agenda....

[cksmart-world]

SMART BOMB

The Completely Unnecessary News Analysis

By Christopher Smart

Oct. 15, 2024

FUELING THE POLITICAL DIVIDE — BURGERS vs. TACOS

Hey Wilson, did you know McDonald's — as in Big Macs — is politically divisive? Well it is, according to a new analysis by The Washington Post.We are not making this up. Reporters scoured reports from Federal Election Commission filings that show who spent what on food. The data reveals that Republican campaigns spent 28 times more at the Golden Arches than Democrats. And get this, Trump's campaign was responsible for 86 percent of GOP dollars spent at McDonald's. No wonder they're so full of gas. Pass the Alka-Seltzer, please. The conservative campaigns also went in big for Chick-fil-A, with an anti-LGBT rep that it's trying to ditch. Overall, fast-food spending by Republican campaigns dwarfed Dems by 18-1, The Post said. Hey Wilson, did you know various studies link fast food to aggressive behavior. No wonder Trump is wigging out at his rallies — he may have Big-Macitis or burger dementia syndrome. Republicans spent more than twice as much as Democrats on barbecue. (It's the meat, stupid.) Dems, on the other hand, handily outspent Republicans on Mexican, Spanish and Chinese — a clear nod to multiculturalism. We'll leave the discussion of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) for our dessert post-election analysis. But we can't forget coffee. Some two-thirds of spending at Starbucks came from Democrats while about the same share of greenbacks was spent by Republicans on Dunkin'. That might not make much sense — but in our politics what does?

TOP TEN REASONS TO BUY CRYPTOCURRENCY NOW!

Recently former president Donald Trump came out in favor of cryptocurrency after being a vocal critic for years. Coincidentally — or not — Utah Republicans Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. John Curtis endorsed it, too, saying: “[D]igital currency represents a revolution in financial freedom and personal privacy.” If the stamp of approval from these guys doesn't convince you, the staff at Smart Bomb provides these 10 items to consider:

10 – With crypto you can act rich whether you are or not. Just charge it.

9 – With crypto you don't pay taxes. The GOP loves it.

8 – You can rid yourself of those clumsy offshore and Swiss bank accounts, like Mike Lee plans to do.

7 – Money laundering becomes completely unnecessary, making this a great time to invest in fentanyl and crystal meth.

6 – Real estate transactions are made easy in places like Russia, Myanmar and Venezuela.

5 – You can start your own crypto exchange with only a little danger of going to prison. (Lawyers are helpful.)

4 – The already-in-circulation Trumpcoin could be a good investment. (Think of gold basketball shoes and your children's future.)

3 – Don't worry about losing your shorts in crypto, like Tom Brady and Shaquille O'Neal. Sure the value goes up and down like a rollercoaster but that's the beauty of it.

2 – It's very easy to move cryptocurrency around. If you get it moving fast enough you can buy just about anything without ever paying for anything.

1 – And the Number One reason to get a big load of crypto right now is so you can mess with other crypto investors before they mess with you.

TIME ONCE AGAIN TO HIDE THE HOMELESS

It's time once again to get rid of — or at least hide — homeless people in Salt Lake City. First we gave them a big shelter. Then we tore that down and gave them three little shelters. Now we're going to repurpose those stupid things and get a campus of shelters or one big shelter or maybe a big circus-like tent with indoor camping. Maybe that could work. Officials wonder why people are always becoming homeless — and, of course, it has nothing to do with trickle-down economics or the fact that since Ronald Reagan more and more people choose homelessness over other lifestyles, like living in a big house on the golf course. One reason may be bad street drugs that make people want to be poor scum, said the chairman of the newly created Homeless Independent Engagement Division, aka HIDE. Chairman Ben Dover told Salt Lake City officials the best way to get rid of drug dealers is to get rid of drug dealers. It's that simple, he said. HIDE replaces the previous council, Help Homeless Hordes, aka 3H, that was criticized for being unwieldy. Ben Dover warned that if the city doesn't stop street drug trafficking he'll vote to withhold state funding aimed at helping homeless people addicted to drugs. It's common sense, he said. However, a spokesman for the mayor noted that homeless people aren't all drug users and drug users aren't all homeless. That came as a surprise to Ben Dover. “Who knew? You learn something new every day,” he said. “So why do they want to be homeless, anyway?”

Post script — That's a wrap for another tense week here at Smart Bomb, where we keep track of election denial so you don't have to. The ballots are about to hit the blades, warns former U.S. solicitor general Neal Katyal. “There is a coming massive crisis that’s going to occur on November 5th… even if Kamala Harris wins the election, the Trump team is going to declare victory with JD Vance at his side." Sound familiar? Trump's staff tried to tell him he lost the 2020 election, according to testimony at the House Jan. 6. Committee. Former Trump Attorney General Bill Bar called claims that Trump had won, “idiotic,” “rubbish,” “nonsense,” “crazy,” “stupid,” and “silly.” Nonetheless, according to polls, about 70 percent of Republicans still believe Trump won in 2020 and he keeps insisting he did. But in an April 2022 interview with a group of historians, Trump admitted he lost: "[W]hen I didn't win the election, [South Korean President Moon Jae-in] had to be the happiest..." Trump has admitted losing on other occasions. "He beat us by a whisker. It was a terrible thing," Trump said during an Aug. 4 interview with podcaster Lex Fridman. He said it again on Aug. 30 at summit of Moms for Liberty and once again on Aug. 23 at an event at the southern border. Some 1,200 have been charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection — 460 of them are serving prison sentences. If you're not laughing, you're crying.

Well Wilson, we're living in dangerous, dark times. We've got alternative facts, bullshit and outright lies. Half the country is tuned into Fox and hate radio and willing to believe anything that's not on network TV. But do you ever wonder if the so-called patriots cooling their heels behind bars have had time to think things over. You and the guys in the band must have something for them — not to mention the rest of us — Wilson, so hit it:

Shadows are fallin' and I've been here all day It's too hot to sleep and time is runnin' away Feel like my soul has turned into steel I've still got the scars that the sun didn't heal There's not even room enough to be anywhere It's not dark yet but it's gettin' there. Well, my sense of humanity has gone down the drain Behind every beautiful thing there's been some kind of pain She wrote me a letter and she wrote it so kind She put down in writin' what was in her mind I just don't see why I should even care It's not dark yet but it's gettin' there. Well, I've been to London and I been to gay Paris I've followed the river and I got to the sea I've been down on the bottom of the world full of lies I ain't lookin' for nothin' in anyone's eyes Sometimes my burden is more than I can bear It's not dark yet but it's gettin' there. I was born here and I'll die here against my will I know it looks like I'm movin' but I'm standin' still Every nerve in my body is so naked and numb I can't even remember what it was I came here to get away from Don't even hear the murmur of a prayer It's not dark yet but it's gettin' there.

(Not Dark Yet — Bob Dylan)

[impossibleperfectionnerd]

those personal interest free loans are just to help you guys get by. 5 years. But you have to have lasted in my Swiss banks & British banks & British companies for at least 6 months. It’s mandatory that they’re on NATO aid. 1 euro per day per family member. The loan cannot be less than 1,700 euro per month but not more than 14000 per month. It depends on your rank in the office. NATO basic will fix it for you. U have to discuss it with them on zoom or googlemeet. You have to transact with Bank of America. In Zurich. (The boss Maiden RINA also owns this). Starting Tomorrow 10am- Philippine Time. Count Primo (Alexis B. solis) will send a NATO representative. Who will talk to you & open ur NATO accounts for da NATO aid & for those interest free loans w/ Count primo (Alexis B Solis). NATO have paperwork. It’s basic loan applications. Contracts of Loan & promissory notes. With new Vatican state watermarks. Maiden RINA will upload this later. She typed them herself. She’s count Primo’s layer. Maiden RINA has a NATO aid account it’s with BDO in the Philippines. Be humble guys. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Get along with the Americans in NATO because they’re the bosses’ top performers in wartime. They are able to do the impossible at reasonable cost. They’re the concessionaire of the New Vatican state as regards employees when the situation gets too extreme ex. Construction workers, actors, soldiers, even the police in here. New Vatican state canon law clerical etc. Taper & get along. There’s a free lawyer that I provide: Dentons Swiss intl law firm & SGV & Co. (both held by NATO) in the Philippines. They can’t refuse to serve you. NATO basic & the paid defense contractor from Sweden will check their work! Beda & Philippine law school must check their work. It has to favor the embattled employee & the boss. Kick Cosel Sylvina & Jan eero g. Lopez. They fucked up the previous! NATO has to kill them permanently.

[thoughtlessarse]

A Swiss criminal court jailed four members of the billionaire Hinduja family on Friday for exploiting domestic workers at their lakeside villa. The family were found guilty of seizing their workers' passports, barred them from going out and made them work up to 18 hours a day. Prosecutors had said that their workers had described a “climate of fear” instituted by Kamal Hinduja. They were forced to work with little or no holiday time, and worked even later hours for receptions. They slept in the basement, sometimes on a mattress on the floor. But the Swiss court dismissed more serious charges of human trafficking against 79-year-old tycoon Prakash Hinduja; his wife, Kamal; son Ajay and daughter-in-law Namrata on the grounds that the workers understood what they were getting into, at least in part. The four received between four and four and a half years in prison. The workers were mostly illiterate Indians who were paid not in Swiss francs but in Indian rupees, deposited in banks back home that they couldn't access. Lawyers representing the defendants said they would appeal.

continue reading

[leprivatebanker]

Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov sues UBS over German probe

Lawyers for sanctioned tycoon accuse Swiss bank of triggering investigation

[mariacallous]

Swiss banks have begun warning Russian customers that their accounts will be closed if they continue paying taxes to Russia, the outlet RBC reported on Thursday, citing two Swiss lawyers who work with Russian clients and a source from the country’s banking sector.

According to Roman Kudinov, a managing partner at the international accounting and legal firm LEOLEX, he was contacted a month ago by about ten clients from the banks UBS and Credit Suisse. All of them said they had received calls from bank employees who warned them that if they continued to be the owners of companies that pay taxes in Russia, the “bank will have to close their account.” Kudinov said the warnings were “unofficial for now.”

Another Swiss lawyer said that some of his clients have already had their accounts blocked after they paid taxes in Russia. A source from the banking sector told RBC that the bank UBS may have sent letters warning of the same issue to some of its clients.

Kudinov said the banks are likely resorting to account closures because of pressure from the Swiss authorities.