Mossack Fonseca: Anyone know which offshore law firm The Guardian uses?April 4, 2016 Tim WorstallTax11 Comments? previousDoes The Guardian’s offshore investigation cover the Guardian’s offshore activities?nextCurrently dribbling nicely 11 thoughts on “Mossack Fonseca: Anyone know which offshore law firm The Guardian uses?” Lizardking April 4, 2016 at 10:42 am Iro PanaLeaks: MossFon are a law firm but their main business is acting as incorporation agent for other professionals (trust and fiduciary companies, law firms, accountancy firms and tax advisers). Together with Icaza Gonzales Ruiz Aleman they’re one of the world’s biggest offshore incorporators. The reality is that in many instances they didn’t provide any service other than incorporate and provide domiciliation services (ROA, directors etc). The advice, if any (and associated statement of compliance), would have come from the instructing intermediary. The claim from the buffoon on R4 this morning (not Murphy although i’m sure he’ll be spittle-flecking soon enough) that this is a world the average Joe simply can’t access is rubbish. $2000 will buy you a Panamanian company with directors… Surreptitious Evil April 4, 2016 at 10:59 am Yes, The comment that, for the Olszewski issue, $10,000 per year fees for a $1.8m investment company (which is a small one, frankly) is “high” just shows that Guardian journalists invest their ill-gotten gains in Tuscan property (where agents’ fees are considerably higher), rather than in the financial markets. JerryC April 4, 2016 at 12:28 pm The law firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. Interested April 4, 2016 at 12:51 pm ‘The claim from the buffoon on R4 this morning (not Murphy although i’m sure he’ll be spittle-flecking soon enough) that this is a world the average Joe simply can’t access is rubbish. $2000 will buy you a Panamanian company with directors…’ A lot of average joes don’t have $2000 lying around, and it’s not as simple as that anyway. I couldn’t give a shit if this stuff is legal but to pretend John Smith has the same access to it as Cameron’s dad is ridiculous. AndrewC April 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm Some predictions…… 1) it will be claimed that this will lead to billions more tax being due to the UK 2) it won’t 3) Murphy will claim that 1) and 2) prove that thousands more staff are needed at HMRC 4) the PCS Union will pay Murphy for 3). Dr Cromarty April 4, 2016 at 6:18 pm @AndrewC Murphy just on R5 pushing 3), the mercenary little shit Bloke in Germany in Catalonia April 4, 2016 at 9:34 pm If you’re a director of 600 Panamanian companies that have been abetting tax evasion in every jurisdiction outside Panama then presumably you’d be well-advised to remain in Panama. Alex April 4, 2016 at 11:01 pm GMG used Freshfields for their disposal of their interest in Autotrader, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they used them or their network. Alan Douglas April 4, 2016 at 11:56 pm HMRC are already robbing the nation of 41.3 % of all income and other forms of tax. If they succeed in catching some of these people, will that raise them to further taking tax freedom day to a full half year ? I think we should be told. Alex April 5, 2016 at 10:34 am @Alan Douglas Probably not much. Using Panama or Liechtenstein is very much the hall mark of the amatear tax avoider / professional money launderer. The former is not going to yield much. The latter is going to find another way to move/hide his wealth. Chester Draws April 5, 2016 at 9:02 pm Please can we here at least maintain the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. If New Zealand is a centre of tax avoidance, as our media keep saying, then no problem. Only tax evasion is illegal. Maintaining that tax avoidance is “immoral” is just bullshit. Who deliberately pays more than they have to? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.