Panama Papers Global array of crime and corruption

[LaCroix]

I don't think that acessory to tax evasion (for they had to know that this was a big thing) or money laundering for known criminals is not illegal. You just need to find some examples and then throw the book at them.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I was referring to those who had used the technically legitimate loopholes to avoid paying tax, as opposed to those who actually evaded (and I find it hilarious that their is a difference between the two) as I would suspect that a large portion, possibly even a majority of those involved fall into the first category.

Legal? Yes. Right? Nope.

[jwl]

I was thinking much the same thing as LaCroix. I don't want what Corbyn suggested to be Plan A, but I think the British government has not just a right but a duty to hold its dependent territories to certain standards. Apart from anything else, I really doubt that it's only persons and corporations who made their money through technically legitimate means who are using these countries to avoid the unwelcome scrutiny of the tax-men; if we're supposed to be speaking on behalf of these countries in foreign affairs then it's our reputation on the line as well if they're providing merchant banking services to the wholesale cocaine trade, or worse.

This I agree with.

Sadly the problem with this is that anyone involved can point at the statute books and say honestly to a judge that no, they haven't done anything illegal. And while I'm not certain, I think Britain has a law against making ex post facto laws. I think it's in the Bill of Rights actually, so it's not like we could pass a new law to charge people the full amount they would have owed, only what they owe as of the moment the tax loopholes are closed.

There are ways around this if you are prepared to be a bit unorthodox. You could literally pass a law saying "on 27th december 2016, google must pay X million pounds to the treasury".

[Eternal_Freedom]

I suspect that you'd find that difficult to pass in the Commons, night impossible in the Lords, and Google would certainly challenge it in whatever legal forum they can do so.

[Simon_Jester]

There are ways around this if you are prepared to be a bit unorthodox. You could literally pass a law saying "on 27th december 2016, google must pay X million pounds to the treasury".

You might be able to do that in Britain, I don't know. In the US it's classified as a "bill of attainder" and is unconstitutional, on grounds of it being the legislature usurping a judicial function.

I don't know if bills of attainder are still used for such matters in Britain.

[Eternal_Freedom]

They are still passable but as best I can tell you either have a general bill of attainder, which nullifies the person's civil rights and prevents them from owning or passing on any property - anything seized in this manner reverts to the Crown. Basically, you declare them outlaws which is possibly a tad extreme for tax avoidance.

There is also a "private bill" which can be a bill of attainder, but those can only apply to one specific person and was historically used to get divorced; it was last used (successfully) in 1820. However doing it this way would be a pain in the ass since you would have to pass a bill for every single individual and frankly that takes a while.

[jwl]

I suspect that you'd find that difficult to pass in the Commons, night impossible in the Lords, and Google would certainly challenge it in whatever legal forum they can do so.

The Lords can't block it if it is explicitly outlined in the manifesto, any party that wanted to pass bills like that could just stick a list in the manifesto and win the next election.

[Esquire]

They are still passable but as best I can tell you either have a general bill of attainder, which nullifies the person's civil rights and prevents them from owning or passing on any property - anything seized in this manner reverts to the Crown. Basically, you declare them outlaws which is possibly a tad extreme for tax avoidance.

This, I think, is the problem. Tax avoidance is exactly the same thing as stealing from the national treasury, and should be punished as harshly as, say, physically going to London and holding up the Exchequer would be.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I suspect that you'd find that difficult to pass in the Commons, night impossible in the Lords, and Google would certainly challenge it in whatever legal forum they can do so.

The Lords can't block it if it is explicitly outlined in the manifesto, any party that wanted to pass bills like that could just stick a list in the manifesto and win the next election.

Which requires waiting four years and assumes they actually win. Methinks people are going to want a solution a bit sooner than that.

They are still passable but as best I can tell you either have a general bill of attainder, which nullifies the person's civil rights and prevents them from owning or passing on any property - anything seized in this manner reverts to the Crown. Basically, you declare them outlaws which is possibly a tad extreme for tax avoidance.

This, I think, is the problem. Tax avoidance is exactly the same thing as stealing from the national treasury, and should be punished as harshly as, say, physically going to London and holding up the Exchequer would be.

This is why there is a difference between avoidance and evasion. Evasion, yes, I would equate to stealing from the Treasury, as it means not paying the legal amount you owe. Avoidance is using legitimate, legal methods to minimise what you owe. And frankly, I have never once heard someone seriously say they should pay more to HMRC than they obliged to, the exact opposite in fact.

So sure, pass a Bill of Attainder for tax evasion by all means (assuming most MPs today even know what one is) but declaring someone an outlaw, seizing all their property and assets and nullifying all civil rights for doing something that is at the time legal? That's rather disproportionate and is also running into the "no ex post facto" laws issue. Unless you want to completely change how Parliament works, you can't do that. And no one wants the government to be able to pass ex post facto laws.

[Esquire]

Mea culpa; I misread avoidance as evasion.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Mea culpa; I misread avoidance as evasion.

No worries, it's an understandable mistake to make and one I've made myself plenty of times.

Though even then, evasion being punished by a historical bill of attainder probably falls under the "No cruel or unusual punishment clause of the UKs Bill of Rights (or maybe the Act of Settlement, one of them) since a) they were historically used as a way to execute traitors without conclusive evidence and b) it strips them of all assets, monies, property and civil rights as a result. The first three I coudl probably agree with (to a degree anyway) but the last one is imo waaay too far. We don't strip all civil rights from convicted child rapists or murderers so doing it for tax evasion is bad, m'kay? Especially since "nullify all civil rights" implies things like, no right to Habeas Corpus, no right to vote, potentially no right to protection from the law, stuff like that.

[madd0ct0r]

Mea culpa; I misread avoidance as evasion.

No worries, it's an understandable mistake to make and one I've made myself plenty of times.

Though even then, evasion being punished by a historical bill of attainder probably falls under the "No cruel or unusual punishment clause of the UKs Bill of Rights (or maybe the Act of Settlement, one of them) since a) they were historically used as a way to execute traitors without conclusive evidence and b) it strips them of all assets, monies, property and civil rights as a result. The first three I coudl probably agree with (to a degree anyway) but the last one is imo waaay too far. We don't strip all civil rights from convicted child rapists or murderers so doing it for tax evasion is bad, m'kay? Especially since "nullify all civil rights" implies things like, no right to Habeas Corpus, no right to vote, potentially no right to protection from the law, stuff like that.

The UK has been doing just that recently, if you are unfortunate enough to be a convicted child rapist with a dual nationality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 96051.html

All under 'anti-terror' laws, of course. You could make just a strong an argument that tax evasion represents a financial undermining of the UK, done for private gain at the cost of the many, and more damaging than many direct attacks. Seems just as valid as arguing that secretly grooming teen girls for sex is an 'act of terror'

[Eternal_Freedom]

That is troubling, but in this case is a tad different, since instead of a legal conviction, using a Bill of Attainder requires passing such a Bill in the Commons. And let's face it, there are enough MP's who oppose the government no matter what to make passing such a Bill difficult at best.

[Grumman]

The UK has been doing just that recently, if you are unfortunate enough to be a convicted child rapist with a dual nationality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 96051.html

All under 'anti-terror' laws, of course. You could make just a strong an argument that tax evasion represents a financial undermining of the UK, done for private gain at the cost of the many, and more damaging than many direct attacks. Seems just as valid as arguing that secretly grooming teen girls for sex is an 'act of terror'

Summarising "rape, forced prostitution, indecent assault and false imprisonment" as "secretly grooming teen girls for sex" seems misleading. If they did what they were convicted of doing they weren't just creeps, they were slavers.

[madd0ct0r]

The UK has been doing just that recently, if you are unfortunate enough to be a convicted child rapist with a dual nationality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 96051.html

All under 'anti-terror' laws, of course. You could make just a strong an argument that tax evasion represents a financial undermining of the UK, done for private gain at the cost of the many, and more damaging than many direct attacks. Seems just as valid as arguing that secretly grooming teen girls for sex is an 'act of terror'

Summarising "rape, forced prostitution, indecent assault and false imprisonment" as "secretly grooming teen girls for sex" seems misleading. If they did what they were convicted of doing they weren't just creeps, they were slavers.

All true and completely irrelevant to the argument. Eternal Freedom thought that stripping civil rights and assets from British citizens would be untenable. The answer to that is that it has been done extremely recently. The key is having dual nationality. An awful lot of the mega rich tax dodgers will also have dual nationality, often a legacy of empire. Exactly the same vague laws could be applied to them.

[madd0ct0r]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aft ... 73631.html

the vultures are circling. I believe the phrase is "Dodgy Dave's Piggy Bank"

[Zaune]

Well, someone's getting the cheapest nursing home his famous son can find...

[madd0ct0r]

Well, someone's getting the cheapest nursing home his famous son can find...

His father is long dead. Presumably Dave inherited, but he probably won't admit that for a few more days.

[Simon_Jester]

In regards to E_F, I must point out that the US calls all laws targeting individuals "bills of attainder" for historical reasons related to the American Revolution. Basically, the US's political founders had rather sharp (if old) memories of the time when bills of attainder were relatively routine tools against those the Crown deemed traitors. Quite a few of the 17th century English colonists came from the Puritans and republicans who'd wound up on the losing side after the Restoration, for instance. Some Jacobites, too, although a surprising number of those ironically fought for the Loyalists (the last recognizable Highland charge appears to have been made in North Carolina, to the cry of "King George and broadswords!").

So basically, bills of attainder had been aimed at men who were, in the eyes of some of the Americans' founding elite, grandpa. Or grandpa's trusted political leaders.

As a predictable side-effect, all such laws (including "Congress says you fellows must pay a fine") were explicitly banned, just to make sure our Congress could never do anything like the practice of specifically outlawing individuals and seizing their property, as practiced in Britain up to that time. This was arguably an overreaction, but it was quite understandable.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Oh I can understand why you fellows banned them, and I'd feel happier knowing such things weren't possible under English law (though arguably they are, thanks to that "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Bill of Rights/Act of Settlement), but one hasn't been used since 1820, so I would consider them to be de facto abolished. Though apparently they were considered in 1942 by Churchill as a way to allow immediate summary execution of any captured top Nazis but he was persuaded to go for trials instead.

[Simon_Jester]

I guess I was just explaining that by US standards, a law saying "Fred has to pay a fine of umpty-ump dollars/pounds" would be a bill of attainder.

Whereas in the context of English history, it's not a bill of attainder, it's a slap on the wrist that probably isn't even legally categorized the same way.

[Eternal_Freedom]

True. i'm honestly not sure whether we could pass such an act. Yes, I know about the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty, but I'm talking whether such an act could be realistically passed.