Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Occupy Underground
Related: About this forumCommentary: Mossack Fonseca's blanket denials have no factual basis
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-Commentary%3A-Mossack-Fonseca's-blanket-denials-have-no-factual-basis-29917.htmlMuch more at the link-
The partners and the public relations people working for Mossack Fonseca have gone to great lengths to claim that the law firm merely formed corporations and foundations for valued clients, and was not involved in their financial matters. In truth and in fact, Mossack Fonseca was engaged in money laundering, as well as wealth management for their clientele, on a massive basis.
--snip--
(1) Mossack Fonseca employed over 120 sales staff worldwide in its wealth management branch, whose sole goal was to sign up clients. Their illicit funds would first be laundered, through bearer share Panamanian companies, and then invested, so that the client would realize a regular return on his or her illegally-acquired assets. There was a division of labour; money laundering was handled by one division and wealth management by another. Some these "investments" were arms trafficking into African countries caught up in civil wars; many of the others were for illegal or immoral purposes as well.
(2) Compliance officers at Mossack Fonseca were replaced and rotated every two months, which meant that nobody in compliance had the big picture about the clients who were engaged in criminal activities, or who were politically exposed persons (PEPs) banking bribe and kickback money. This short-term replacement also meant that Mossack Fonseca would not have to pay the ones who were let go severance, which is otherwise required under Panamanian employment law.
When the compliance officer ascertained that a new client was either a criminal, or subject to international or OFAC sanctions, or a corrupt PEP, management would tell her to disregard her information, because the Panamanian authorities would never discover that fact. Panama does have an abysmal record regarding arrests for money laundering. Simply put, there are none. Remember also, that Ramon Fonseca himself, while trying to defend his law firm, admitted that it does not always know the identity of the beneficial owner of a corporation that it forms for "valued clients." We call that willful blindness in the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986.
(2) Compliance officers at Mossack Fonseca were replaced and rotated every two months, which meant that nobody in compliance had the big picture about the clients who were engaged in criminal activities, or who were politically exposed persons (PEPs) banking bribe and kickback money. This short-term replacement also meant that Mossack Fonseca would not have to pay the ones who were let go severance, which is otherwise required under Panamanian employment law.
When the compliance officer ascertained that a new client was either a criminal, or subject to international or OFAC sanctions, or a corrupt PEP, management would tell her to disregard her information, because the Panamanian authorities would never discover that fact. Panama does have an abysmal record regarding arrests for money laundering. Simply put, there are none. Remember also, that Ramon Fonseca himself, while trying to defend his law firm, admitted that it does not always know the identity of the beneficial owner of a corporation that it forms for "valued clients." We call that willful blindness in the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 2026 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Commentary: Mossack Fonseca's blanket denials have no factual basis (Original Post)
Snarkoleptic
Apr 2016
OP
Snarkoleptic
(5,995 posts)1. Additional article here-