I see a slight problem here

Ritchie\’s on about secrecy jurisdictions again.

Step 2 is to define secrecy jurisdictions as places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain.

Obviously, we need to have a method of measuring \”intent\” here. A simple one might be that if the same legal manouvres, the same tax rates, the same secrecy, are available to one who is resident in that jurisdiction as to one who is not then we\’re not able to prove that intent.

For example, Monaco has no income tax for residents. Thus, in terms of offering bank accounts or investment portfolios that do not attract reports for income tax purposes for non-residents Monaco is not a secrecy jurisdiction: for we\’ve not shown primary intent.

Residents and non-residents are being treated the same.

Similarly Swiss bank secrecy. The account of a Swiss citizen or resident is protected by the same laws as an account held by a UK or US citizen: thus it is not a secrecy jurisdiction. This then rolls on: The Delaware Corporation is open to a Delaware resident as it is to anyone else, a trust through the City of London to a UK resident.

The only slight problem with using this definition is that it drives a coach and horses through Ritchie\’s entire world view. Something of a shame, certainly, but then perhaps not all that surprising.

2 comments on “I see a slight problem here

  1. The superLOL here is, of course, that the Caymans, Bermuda, etc wouldn’t class as secrecy jurisdictions under this definition, but the UK would…

  2. Tim

    Even my fiercest academic critics think this definition takes understanding of this issue further forward than just about anything offered before

    It’s a shame your understanding of ring-fences is so limited you can’t see this

    Richard

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.