THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 7, BELOW--
Crores of money transferred through RTGS transfers to some shell companies included cases where directors were servants, maids , cooks and drivers.
After demonetisation of high denomination notes BIG FISH used slave Indian bank managers of desh drohi foreign banks to back date records and launder they hoarded money.
BIG FISH having old currencies converted those old notes into gold even at inflated rates.
The govt must know that in India many gold jewellery shops are just fronts to launder money..
Persons with hoarded cash ( demonetization period ) were pro-actively contacted by the jewelers who collected such cash from these parties as advances against gold to be sold at high prices ranging from Rs 45000-50000 per 10 gm
The cash so collected was laundered through banking channels with the help of launderers who are professionally qualified CAs and managing shell companies and finally payments from such companies were made through RTGS to bullion dealers and the physical gold so purchased at market rate of Rs 31000-32000/ 10 gm was handed over to the persons from whom advances were received
Shell companies which had bank accounts in foreign banks used to deposit cash to the tune of Rs 39 crore between 10-22 November 2016 in close connivance with bank managers.
The white JEWS of foreign banks cried— “We are appalled . We will punish our Indian bank managers “
Sorry, we want the govt to jail these desh drohi banker bastards by a jail term –NOT fines or suspensions .
THE CURRENT BANK STRIKE IS SPONSORED BY KOSHER FOREIGN BANKS USING THEIR SLAVE LABOUR UNION LEADERS ---TO TWIST THE ARMS OF THE GOVT, SO THAT THEY DON’T PUNISH THESE DESH DROHI BANK MANAGERS
GOVT MUST NOT CAPITULATE TO THE BANK UNION LEADERS-- EXTREME PAIN FOR THESE FOREIGN PAYROLL SLAVES , IS THE ANSWER
The bank's staff exploited a loophole to convert old currency notes by buying gold in the name of shell companies
DURING THE DEMONITISATION PERIOD THERE WAS A SURGE IN THE SALE OF GOLD USING BACK DATED VOUCHERS
The gold was sold on the basis of fabricated, back-dated receipts—and scrapped notes were accepted.
Smurfs, shell companies and Reserve bank remittance loop ( extended period DELIBERATELY provided--- BRAAAAYYYYY ) hole did the trick
Shell firms were used to place orders with the jewellers to buy the gold irregularly in lieu of scrapped notes and if payments were made using bank accounts with connivance of foreign bank SLAVE Indian managers
Co-operative bank managers in Kerala did endless fraud, supported by the politicians and their ATTIMARI goons
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has arrested two managers from Axis Bank for their alleged involvement in converting Rs 40 crore of old Rs 500 and 1,000 notes into new currency notes through online transactions.
The accused, identified as Shashnk Sinha and Vinit Gupta, were posted in the Kashmere Gate branch of the bank where they allegedly assisted in money laundering with the help of associates, including a chartered accountant, besides shell companies.
The managers repeatedly used Aadhaar cards and other documents of several bank customers who had deposited old currency notes to commit the crime.
The cash deposits were made in multiple installments of Rs 90 to Rs 99 lakh to evade detection by the government agencies.
The scam was detected after the Delhi Police seized Rs 3.7 crore in old notes from three persons outside the Kashmere Gate branch on November 22, 2016.
Several shell companies such as Sunrise Trading, Himalaya International and RD Traders have their bank accounts with the Kashmere Gate branch. They deposited huge tranche of demonetised cash between November 10 and 22 , 2016, in connivance with the bank managers
Imagine, a Swiss bank, tells its client to close an account and open one with an American custodian bank. The client then appoints the Swiss bank as investment manager on the custodian account, and that bank instructs the custodian which funds to buy, often the Swiss bank’s own products.
The Swiss bank earns fees for advice and fund-management; the custodian picks up business; and the account is deemed for regulatory purposes to be American, meaning it avoids the disclosure rules that apply only to countries signed up to the CRS.
The Common Reporting Standard (CRS), developed in response to the G20 request and approved by the OECD Council on 15 July 2014, calls on jurisdictions to obtain information from their financial institutions and automatically exchange that information with other jurisdictions on an annual basis.
It sets out the financial account information to be exchanged, the financial institutions required to report, the different types of accounts and taxpayers covered, as well as common due diligence procedures to be followed by financial institutions.
More Than 100 Jurisdictions Including Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Switzerland, Have Committed to Implement the CRS, an Internationally Agreed Standard
India is part of this.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental economic organisation with 35 member countries, to stimulate economic progress and world trade.
Each country will annually automatically exchange with the other country the below information in the case of Jurisdiction A with respect to each Jurisdiction B Reportable Account, and in the case of Jurisdiction B with respect to each Jurisdiction A Reportable Account:---
--the name, address, Taxpayer Identification Number and date and place of birth of each Reportable Person.
--the account number
--the name and identifying number of the Reporting Financial Institution;
--the account balance or value as of the end of the relevant calendar or, if the account was closed during such year or period, the closure of the account
The totality of the information and its format are governed by a hugely detailed standard (Hence standard in the name), whose details are listed in a rule book hundreds of pages long.
More than $2 trillion in U.S.-based multinational profits currently sit in offshore accounts, representing, by credible estimates, in excess of $500 billion in unpaid taxes.
And every year that Congress dithers on a crackdown, America is forfeiting an approximate $90 billion in revenue.
The biggest names in corporate America are boycotting the U.S. tax system, en masse. Top offenders include giants from high-tech (Microsoft, $76 billion); Big Pharma (Pfizer, $69 billion); Big Oil (ExxonMobil, $47 billion); investment banks (Goldman Sachs, $22 billion); Big Tobacco (Philip Morris, $20 billion); discount retailers (Wal-Mart, $19 billion); fast-food chains (McDonald's, $16 billion) – even heavy machinery (Caterpillar, $17 billion). General Electric has $110 billion stashed offshore, and enjoys an effective tax rate of four percent – 31 points lower than its statutory obligation to the IRS.
You've got so many big, powerful corporations doing it that it's the norm—proof that a KOSHER shadow govt rules USA . Let us see if Trump can drain the kosher swamp.
PURAANA MAAL MAGTHA HAI KYA ?
A Shelf Corporation is a company that was created years ago for the sole purpose of being sold in the future simply for the value of its age.A shelf corporation, shelf company, or aged corporation is a company or corporation that has had no activity. It was created and left with no activity – metaphorically put on the "shelf" to "age"..
Shelf companies are formed and sold usually by accounting or law firms. The older the entity is the more valuable potentially it becomes, and the more you will have to pay for it. The number one reason people want an aged entity to improve their chances of getting loans and credit— you make an ass out of people. People take you more seriously when you are a corporate entity.
Again, PM Modi please note-- Make all shell companies ILLEGAL. I know its legal now but even the best ones are just tax avoiders
If start up capital cannot be explained, sieze the asset. This goes largely back to shell companies.
Saying "Ghost inc gave me the money" should not be sufficient. How did they earn it? If there is no description, sieze it.
The Indian collegium judiciary just don't want to deal with white collar crime.
We know why they are after Subrata Roy’s ass—all in good time
We've all seen it in action: a poor man is busted for shoplifting or picking pockets or whatever and they're sent to jail as undertials .
Someone defrauds a company and the proceedings take years, if they happen at all. Straight into the too-hard basket.
DONALD TRUMP MUST CRUSH SHELL COMPANIES IN USA .
TRUMP MUST LEAD THE PLANET IN ELIMINATING THE SCOURGE OF KOSHER SHELL COMPANIES . BILDERBERG INNER CLUB WILL NOT BE HAPPY.
EFFICIENT USE OF SHELL COMPANIES IS ALWAYS AN ITEM IN THE MEETING AGENDA
An excuse given by rich Jews is that SHELL companies also help protect their privacy including hiding personal wealth ( like expensive art ) to diminish the risk of kidnapping. This is KOSHER bullshit—hire a fuckin’ guard.
Sham companies that tricked elderly people into investing in worthless business schemes, laundering millions of dollars from Mexican drug cartels, accepting political bribes,
U.S. firms are legally prohibited from knowingly helping customers to avoid taxes, but they can offer them privacy and secrecy, and ask very few questions.
What is all this bullshit ?
In 2010, ( effective from July 1, 2014.) the United States implemented legislation called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, in hopes of catching American tax cheats.
This was done in an effort to deter those considering hiding their assets in offshore accounts or shell companies.
The law required financial firms around the world to report accounts held by U.S. citizens to the Internal Revenue Service – or else face being frozen out of the U.S. financial system.
FATCA was developed to reduce offshore tax evasion and regain federal tax revenues from American account holders at foreign (non-American) financial institutions internationally.
The impetus for the Act was a 2009 court case in which Swiss Bank UBS was found to have assisted American nationals to evade paying American taxes. As a result, UBS agreed to pay the United States (US) government US$780 million in fines, restitution and provide the names of suspected tax cheats.
The use of offshore bank accounts to avoid paying American taxes costs the US Treasury, in total, at least 300 billion USD billion annually.
– individuals to report their financial accounts held outside of the United States, and
– foreign (that is, non-US) financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about their American clients.
To enforce the FATCA, it has become necessary for the US government to sign agreements with foreign governments allowing the trade of individuals’ financial data
On May 9, 2016, the Justice Department announced that Gregg R. Mulholland, a dual U.S. and Canadian citizen and owner of an offshore broker-dealer and investment management company based in Panama and Belize, pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy for fraudulently manipulating the stocks of more than 40 U.S. publicly-traded companies and then laundering more than $250 million in profits through at least five offshore law firms.
Mulholland and several other defendants were indicted in 2014 by a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York. The indictment alleges that between 2010 and 2014, Mulholland controlled a group of individuals (the Mulholland Group) who together devised three interrelated schemes to--:
(1) induce U.S. investors to purchase stock in various thinly-traded U.S. public companies through fraudulent promotion of the stock, concealment of their ownership interests in the companies, and fraudulent manipulation of artificial price movements and trading volume in the stocks of those companies;
(2) circumvent the IRS’s reporting requirements under FATCA; and
(3) launder the fraudulent proceeds from the stock manipulation schemes to and from the United States through five offshore law firms.
According to the indictment, the defendants’ scheme also enabled U.S. clients to evade reporting requirements to the IRS by concealing the proceeds generated by the manipulated stock transactions through the shell companies and their nominees.
The indictment alleges that in order to carry out these interrelated schemes, the Mulholland Group used shell companies in Belize and Nevis, West Indies, which had nominees at the helm.
This structure was designed to conceal the Mulholland Group’s ownership interest in the stock of U.S. public companies, in violation of U.S. securities laws, and enabled the Mulholland Group to engage in more than 40 “pump and dump” schemes.
The indictment reveals that law enforcement authorities employed undercover agents and wiretaps to record numerous conversations involving the defendants. In one recorded meeting, two of the defendants bragged that their strategy enabled clients to evade FATCA’s requirements
On a recorded telephone call, one of the defendants told a client that the use of offshore nominee companies was specifically intended to evade FATCA’s reporting requirements
TAX EVASION AND SHELL COMPANIES MUST BE PART OF THE ECONOMICS SYLLABUS IN INDIAN SCHOOLS.
WE ASK PM MODI
GIVE A DEADLINE FOR PEOPLE HOLDING BENAMI PROPERTIES AND GRABBED LANDS AND FALSE REGISTRY LANDS TO COME HONEST AND ADMIT
AFTER THAT THE PUNISHMENT MUST BE MINIMUM TEN YEARS JAIL AND LOSS OF PROPERTY.
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN GENUINE DOUBT MUST APPROACH A SPECIAL CELL FOR HELP WITHIN A DEAD LINE
EVER HEARD OF JUDGES MAKING A CHOOT OUT OF EVERYBODY ( TO CREATE A KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOUR ) AND ASSISTING CLANDESTINELY IN LAUNDERING MONEY FOR A KICK BACK ?
Some 19 British firms are at the center of an investigation into in a mammoth global money-laundering operation. The scheme was allegedly contrived to make $20bn worth of ill-gotten gains appear legitimate.
The illicit funds are thought to have originated from criminal gangs and corrupt officials across the globe, attempting to make their dirty money appear 'clean' so it can be spent free of suspicion.
An investigation carried out by The Independent and UK NGO the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) uncovered a complex international web of companies, which are implicated in the scheme.
As part of the probe, a minimum of 19 UK firms are currently under investigation, The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), founded in 2006, is a consortium of investigative centers, media and journalists operating in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Central America.
OCCRP is the only full-time investigative reporting organization that specializes in organized crime and corruption. OCCRP’s goal is to help the people of the world understand how organized crime and corruption resides in their countries and in their governments.
The criminal operation highlights how Britain’s lax regulatory architecture has made the UK a particularly alluring destination for global organized crime syndicates looking to launder ill-gotten gains. Because directors of British firms are afforded a high degree of financial secrecy under UK law, the identities of the scam's primary architects are extremely difficult to determine.
The cross-border money laundering scheme was in operation for four years before it was uncovered in May by criminal investigators in Moldova. In tandem with Britain, the former Soviet republic was one of the scam's core focal points.
Vital to the process of money laundering, is the creation of an impression the funds have been earned legitimately. As a result, criminals often work to cultivate documentation that indicates their tainted funds stem from honourable origins.
In past cases, criminals have often taken over legitimate firms for the purpose of laundering dirty money. But when illicit funds generated from criminal activity amount to billions, such straightforward schemes become impractical, and more complex laundering operations are required.
In the scam, uncovered by the Independent and OCCRP, front companies were created in Britain which conducted fake and fraudulent business deals amongst one another. These ‘shell companies’ subsequently sued one another in Moldovan courts, demanding they be repaid loans amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds.
As part of the scam, a Moldovan judge would issue a ruling in favor of the claimant firm, which subsequently received a large payment from the opposing company.
Related judgments resulted in the creation of court documents that legitimised such transactions.
But rather than flow from one UK firm to another, the funds were channeled from Russia – an international money laundering hot spot, which attracts gangs and corrupt officials from across the globe looking to ‘clean’ ill-gotten gains. Generally such dirty money stems from political corruption, white collar crime, human trafficking, drug dealing and prostitution.
Once the illicit funds arrived in the accounts of UK front companies in Moldova, the money was funneled into a bank in Latvia. Latvia’s banking system is integrated with the EU, and considerably well regulated. As a result, this final phase of the operation bolstered the tainted funds'apparent legitimacy.
Because of its lax financial regulation, Britain has become a focal point for money laundering schemes. Front companies can be set up on British soil with little oversight.
The launderers behind this scam were able to shift the jurisdiction of their lawsuits to Moldova by employing Moldovan citizens as guarantors in their fraudulent business deals. The false debts central to the operation were also guaranteed by Russian firms.
The UK firms under investigation were registered at regular office buildings in London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Birmingham
However, their true ownership is obscured by a web of shell companies and nominee directors in offshore tax havens, such as the Seychelles, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands.
Nominee directors are third party individuals officially registered as administrators of offshore companies. This allows true benefactors or managers to remain entirely anonymous. They are often central to aggressive, yet legal, tax avoidance schemes.
One UK firm under suspicion for involvement in the scam has listed its shareholders as two untraceable firms in Panama and Belize. Another firm, Westburn Enterprises, succeeded in claiming half a billion US dollars from a guarantor in Russia through Moldovan courts.
Despite allegedly conducting such vast transactions, the firm is registered as a small accountancy company in Edinburgh called Axiano. Although Westburn Enterprises claims its director is Marios Papntoniou, he is merely the boss of the Edinburgh-based accountancy firm.
Axiano is not implicated in any criminality, and ultimately has nothing to do with Westburn’s operations. Rather, the accountancy outfit is but one of many UK firms that legally sets up offshore companies, which are shrouded in secrecy to guarantee their anonymity.
Another UK firm, allegedly being probed, is London-registered Valemont Properties. The address of its director, Damian James Calderbank, is listed in two Dubai office blocks and a London-based office. Calderbank is thought to be a nominee director, and utterly unaware of the firm’s activities ( little bo peep syndrome ) .
But Valemont Properties' director reportedly holds an additional 21 UK directorships in Britain, has resigned from 333 such positions, and was formally the director of 227 UK firms that have been dissolved. He is also a director of multiple other offshore firms, the Independent’s investigation reveals.
Meanwhile, Valemont Properties’ specially appointed company secretary cannot be questioned about the firm’s suspicious activities because it happens to be a financial vehicle located in the Bahamas, under the name Hextable Limited.
Two other UK firms under investigation are registered at addresses that correspond to PO Boxes in Edinburgh, Shepherd Market and London.
A further three firms are registered to a space in a Birmingham building, which is estimated to house approximately 1,300 firms. Documents supplied by Moldova’s Ministry of Justice reveal one of these Birmingham firms was awarded half a billion dollars in a single court decision.
According to financial regulation experts and campaigners, Britain has long been a favored destination for foreign fraudsters and criminals to hide their ill-gotten cash. Systemic failures make it impossible to pursue the billions laundered directly into onshore British financial organizations.
Money laundering is necessitated by the requirement for criminals, be they drug traffickers, organized criminals, terrorists, arms traffickers, blackmailers, or credit card swindlers, to disguise the origin of their criminal money so that they can use it more easily.
Money laundering generally involves a series of multiple transactions used to disguise the source of financial assets so that those assets may be used without compromising the criminals who are seeking to use the funds.
These transactions typically fall into three stages: --
(1) Placement, the process of placing, through deposits, wire transfers, or other means, unlawful proceeds into financial institutions;
(2) Layering, the process of separating the proceeds of criminal activity from their origin through the use of layers of complex financial transactions; and
(3) Integration, the process of using an apparently legitimate transaction to disguise the illicit proceeds.
Through this process the criminal tries to transform the monetary proceeds derived from illicit activities into funds with an apparently legal source.
Modern financial systems, in addition to facilitating legitimate commerce, permit criminals to order the transfer of millions of dollars instantly, using personal computers and satellite dishes.
The criminal's choice of money laundering vehicles is limited only by his or her creativity.
Money is laundered through currency exchange houses, stock brokerage houses, gold dealers, casinos, automobile dealerships, insurance companies, and trading companies.
Private banking facilities, offshore banking, shell corporations, free trade zones, wire systems, and trade financing all have the ability to mask illegal activities.
Unchecked, money laundering can erode the integrity of a nation's financial institutions. Due to the high integration of capital markets, money laundering could also adversely affect currencies and interest rates as launderers reinvest funds where their schemes are less likely to be detected, rather than where rates of return are higher.
Ultimately, this laundered money flows into global financial systems where it could undermine national economies and currencies.
The continued abuse of some offshore financial centers, the proliferation of on-line Internet banking and Internet gambling have further enhanced the need to scrutinize new technologies to combat money laundering schemes.
To determine the residential status of foreign companies, the Finance Act 2015 introduced the concept of place of effective management or POEM. If a company’s place of effective management is India, it will be treated as an Indian resident and its global income will be taxable in India.
My friend ARUN –will it take off by at least April 1, 2017 –why this delay. Why did demonetization happen before ?
BATAOO NAH ?
The intent of POEM is to not target Indian multi-nationals which are engaged in business activity outside India.
But the intent is to target shell companies created for retaining income outside India although real control and management of affairs is located in India.
FLIPKART KO LODA LAG JAYEGA KYA ?
Passive income companies are usually of three types –
--- a large group that has global subsidiaries and has been using intermediate holding companies that lack real operations;
-- entities, such as in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors, that have companies outside India with the sole purpose of owning intellectual property and thereby earn only licensing or royalty income;
--- personal holding companies of Indian individuals, especially in the private equity space.
Fund managers, based in India, have holding companies in low-tax jurisdictions and that company owns interest in a fund or other investments for them.
These holding companies KO LODA LAG JAAN CHAAHIYE -- they have no active income and key decisions are taken in India.
The Place of Effective Management is defined in the Income Tax Act to mean “a place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the business of an entity as a whole are, in substance, made.”
A company will be deemed to be engaged in active business outside India if the passive income is not more than 50% of its total income and less than 50% of its total assets are situated in India, less than 50% of the total number of employees are situated in India or are resident in India, and the payroll expenses on such employees is less than 50% of the total payroll expenditure. It attempts to differentiate between shareholder control, management control and routine decisions.
The intent is not to target Indian multinationals which are engaged in business activity outside India, but to target shell companies and companies which are created for retaining income outside India although real control and management of affairs is located in India
Head Office’ of a company would be the place where the company's senior management and their direct support staff are located or, if they are located at more than one location, the place where they are primarily or predominantly located.
Controls have been placed over a tax assessing officer triggering these rules. He will need approval of a three-member collegium of his senior officers prior to invoking these guidelines
Money launderers also negatively impact jurisdictions by reducing tax revenues through underground economies, competing unfairly with legitimate businesses, damaging financial systems, and disrupting economic development.
Financial gain means power. Fighting money launderers not only reduces financial crime; it also deprives criminals and terrorists of the means to commit other serious crimes.
The United States and other nations are victims of tax evasion schemes that use various financial centers around the world and their bank secrecy laws to hide money from tax authorities, thus undermining legitimate tax collection.
Financial centers that have strong bank secrecy laws and weak corporate formation regulations, and that do not cooperate in tax inquiries from foreign governments, are found worldwide.
These financial centers, known as "tax havens," thrive in providing sanctuary for the deposit of monies from individuals and businesses that evade the payment of taxes in their home jurisdictions and allow them to keep the money they have deposited from the knowledge of tax authorities.
Billions of funds on which tax is properly due, denominated in various currencies, are held on deposit in these tax havens.
Both tax evasion and money laundering are activities that are aided by financial centers that have strong bank secrecy laws and a policy of non-cooperation with foreign law enforcement authorities, as is the case with some jurisdictions with offshore financial centers.
Nearly sixty jurisdictions, scattered around the globe, comprise the constantly expanding offshore financial services sector.
offshore financial centers are in almost all cases, segregated from the normal banking structure of the jurisdiction. The vast majority of jurisdictions offering offshore financial services restrict access to these services and products to non-residents, thereby creating a parallel system within their own borders.
Many jurisdictions with OFCs conduct financial transactions only in currencies other than the local currency. OFCs lack the stringent regulatory and supervisory regimes found in developed onshore jurisdictions. In the majority of OFCs, banks are not required to adhere to a wide range of regulations normally imposed on onshore banks.
Formation of a bank is more easily accomplished in most OFCs; --- in some jurisdictions a bank can be formed, registered and its ownership placed in the hands of nominee directors via the Internet.
However formed, there are few, if any, disclosure requirements; bank transactions are free of exchange and interest rate restrictions; minimal or no capital reserve requirements are required; and transactions are mostly tax-free.
OFCs, a principal attraction is often the existence of legal frameworks designed to obscure the identity of the beneficial owner, to promote regulatory and supervisory arbitrage, and to provide mitigation or evasion of home-country tax regimes.
Some of these OFCs offer the ability to form and manage confidentiality of a variety of international business companies (IBCs) and exempt companies, trusts, investment funds and insurance companies, many with nominee directors, nominee officeholders and nominee shareholders.
When combined with the use of bearer shares and "mini-trusts" (the latter are instruments used to further insulate the beneficial owner while bridging the ownership and management of the corporate entity), IBCs can present impenetrable barriers to law enforcement.
OFCs maintain that their carefully crafted laws and regulations provide beneficial business and financial planning options for their clients.
These include, but are not limited to: sophisticated trade financing; estate planning for high net worth individuals; tax mitigation for individuals and corporations; avoidance of exchange controls; liability containment for ships and airplanes; sophisticated insurance management options; investment opportunities that transcend home country marketing regulations; preservation of assets; investment of overnight funds; and freedom from certain home country regulatory requirements.
This lack of transparency, coupled with a concomitant reluctance or refusal of many OFCs to cooperate with regulators and law enforcement officials from other jurisdictions, attracts those with both legitimate and illegitimate purposes.
Drug traffickers, terrorists, money launderers, tax evaders and other criminals have found the OFCs a particularly inviting venue in which to conduct and conceal their activities.
One form of trust, the Asset Protection Trust (APT), protects the assets of individuals from civil judgments in their home countries. A common provision of APTs is that challenges or claims against the assets of the trust must be brought before the courts of the jurisdiction of the APT domicile within a relatively short period of time (usually two years).
Many APTs contain "flee clauses" providing for funds to be immediately transferred to another OFC if the APT is threatened by inquiry. Used in combination, IBCs, mini-trusts, bearer shares and APTs make it nearly impossible for competent authorities to generate paper trails or to identify beneficial owners of companies, while they simultaneously protect those engaging in serious financial crime from civil or criminal prosecution.
Selling of "economic citizenship"—a practice that enables individuals suspected of committing crimes to purchase citizenship in an OFC jurisdiction that does not have an extradition agreement with the purchaser's original home country. Currently five Caribbean Basin OFCs are actively selling economic citizenships: Belize, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts/Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In the Pacific region, economic citizenships are for sale in Nauru.
Internet gaming executed via the use of credit cards and offshore banks represents yet another powerful vehicle for criminals to launder funds from illicit sources as well as to evade taxes.
Advertised on the Internet as being located primarily in the Caribbean Basin, virtual casinos can be extremely profitable for governments that sell the licenses and likely share in the operator's profits. Antigua and Barbuda, for example, reportedly had licensed more than 80 Internet gaming websites at a cost of $75,000-$85,000 for a sports betting shop and $100,000 for a virtual casino.
As the Offshore Financial Services chart indicates, with the exception of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, all Caribbean Basin OFCs that sell "economic citizenships" also sell virtual casino licenses. In the Pacific region, only the Palau and Vanuatu OFCs are reported to sell gaming licenses (reportedly for much lower fees than are charged in the Caribbean)
With the advent of the Internet and other technological advances, monies can be quickly transferred around the globe, providing further opportunities to engage in the placement and layering of illicitly gained funds.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is an anti-gambling law that passed Congress on September 30, 2006. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2006. It is often abbreviated as simply UIGEA.
The UIGEA was a punitive measure that added a layer of enforcement against individuals and companies that processed payments for illegal internet gambling, which was not defined by the law.
The bill stalled in the US Senate. It was unable to gain traction on its own thanks to Bilderberg club
The final version of the bill was toned down from the original to please KOHSR big fisg. It was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006, which was a funding bill to counter terrorism. It passed Congress on Sept. 30, 2006-- to the outrage of Jews in America.
The gist of the bill is this:
It “prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in a bet or wager that involves the use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any federal or state law.”
The UIGEA made it illegal for the following entities to facilitate payments in connection with online gambling transactions:
(i) the operator (i.e. the casino)
(ii) the payment processor
(iii) the debit/credit card issuer
(iv) any depository institution (read: BANK)...
Things were good before the Bush Administration passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006. Really good.
Players were signing up to publicly traded and privately owned poker sites in droves. Reports show that more than 100,000 players were signing up to Party Poker, 888, Sportingbet and Bwin …each month. 87% of the entire market was US players.
At the peak of the boom – around 2005, 2006 – online poker in the United States was worth more than 1.3 billion USD annually.
After UIGEA was passed Party Poker’s stock dropped 60% overnight. Other companies reported losses ranging from $40 to $60 million annually. There was a total loss (market capitalization loss) of (an estimated) $7.6 billion.
The passage of UIGEA led all gambling sites listed on the London Stock Exchange to discontinue accepting players from the United States. The case of partygaming, which ran the then-ubiquitous partypoker in the USA, illustrates the effect the Act had on companies that attempted to remain in the American market, as their publicly traded stock dropped almost 60% within 24 hours of the bill’s passage.
There were several exemptions for the UIGEA. This included activity protected by the Horseracing Act of 1978, certain forms of fantasy sports and intrastate gambling specifically permitted under state laws. It also included language that excluded forms of insurance and financial instruments traded on a public stock exchange.
The UIGEA’s intent was to make payment processing for these industries illegal. UIGEA created additional punishment for those found guilty of the activity. The goal was to encourage offshore gambling sites to exit the US market by creating a specific law to punish individuals and companies that processed payments to these entities.
Online poker and casino players, as well as governments of countries and that spread online gambling to the US were among those that opposed the UIGEA.
The Financial Stability Forum's Offshore Working Group and the Financial Action Task Force's Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories Initiative, have had a direct impact on the offshore financial services industry.
These initiatives have drawn distinctions between the better-regulated and cooperative jurisdictions and those that are not. Both initiatives have focused a great deal of attention on the OFCs
The principal objective of the Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCT) Initiative was to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system to money laundering by ensuring that all financial centres adopt and implement measures for the prevention, detection and punishment of money laundering according to internationally recognised standards.
The Financial Stability Forum (FSF) was convened in 1999 at the request of the G-7 Finance Ministers to promote international financial stability through information exchange and international cooperation in financial supervision and surveillance.
The Financial Stability Forum (FSF) was a group consisting of major national financial authorities such as finance ministries, central bankers, and international financial bodies.
In response to the G-7 Finance Ministers 1998 Birmingham Summit, the FATF formally created the Ad Hoc Group on Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCT.)
The FATF blacklist or OECD blacklist was the common shorthand description for the Financial Action Task Force list of "Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories" (NCCTs) issued since 2000, which it perceived to be non-cooperative in the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
Recently the Reserve Bank prohibited Indian entities from making direct investments in any entity located in 'non co-operative countries and territories', as identified by the inter-governmental body FATF.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) currently comprises two regional organisations and 35 member jurisdictions, including India, US, UK, China and the European Commission.
The prohibition on investment is "in order to align" instructions under FEMA with the objectives of the FATF.
Money launderers are modifying traditional techniques to take advantage of developments and technologies designed to streamline the process as well as employing the services of professionals such as lawyers and accountants to help launder illicit proceeds.
Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) continue to play a critical role in U.S. anti-money laundering efforts. Similar types of reporting systems are in operation throughout the world and are a key component in global anti-money laundering efforts as well.
In addition to their importance to law enforcement efforts to combat money laundering, SAR reporting can also provide important information on current money laundering trends and typologies.
U.S. regulators tackle money laundering in the luxury home market
Seventy-eight percent of real estate transactions in the U.S. must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) strict anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
The real estate industry is subject to BSA/AML requirements since the BSA’s definition of “financial institution” includes those involved in real estate transactions.
A New York Times investigation found shell companies purchased nearly half of residential homes over $5 million in 2015.
The use of shell companies obscures the identity of the actual owner or owners, making it difficult to determine the true owner of a property in a transaction, allowing corrupt officials, drug traffickers and others to purchase luxury real estate with cash.
One of India’s top wilful defaulters, Zoom Developers (P) Ltd, and its promoter are linked to an offshore trust registered in the British Virgin Islands .
The company, which owes at least 26 state-owned banks close to Rs 3,002 crore, and promoter Vijay Choudhary are linked to Gold Harvest Trust, which was set up on August 23, 2006
While Choudhary is named as the intermediary of the trust, Managecorp Limited is named as the trustee.
The operation of the trust were carried out from the registered office address of Zoom Developers in Andheri, which has since been attached by the consortium of lenders over default of loans.
The ED is investigating another Liechtenstein-based trust set up by Zoom Developers called Beverin Trust, as it claims the trust was used to divert loan money. The enforcement agency has also provisionally attached 1,280 acres of land of Zoom worth Rs 1,000 crore in the United States under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Zoom had borrowed heavily citing projects in European countries. The money, allegedly, was siphoned off through many dummy firms - in India, Switzerland and London - and channelled to trusts. Part of the money was used to buy properties.
Now, Zoom has taken down its website; e-mail accounts have been disabled; and telephone lines are dead. According to an Enforcement Directorate source, Choudhary is absconding.
A CBI special court has issued a non-bailable warrant against Chaudhary who failed to appear before it in one of these cases.
Zoom allegedly diverted loan funds to 350-odd subsidiaries, related parties based in India and abroad, and to purchase jewellery for the wife of its promoter Chaudhary. Several lenders also issued bank guarantees to the company allegedly without due diligence and allowed it to roll over bank guarantees for four years until 2009
Zoom Developers’ main business was scrapping a plant and then relocating it. In 2004-05, sources said, the company decided to use five aggregators, mostly from Europe, to get international orders. In this context, aggregators are entities that secure job contracts for a third party.
Zoom used to sign contracts with these aggregators to execute projects for third parties. The aggregators would make advance payments to Zoom and secure this with a bank guarantee from an Indian bank for an equal amount.
These project contracts did not have any clause on final payment of money to the company. Some contracts allegedly did not have the name of the third party for which work was being commissioned or the location where work was to be executed
A classic black money operator opens many shell companies to route money before it is invested. This is called 'layering', and it helps in covering up the money trail. Assets are rarely in the beneficiary's name and money is moved through jurisdictions where Indian laws are not respected.
Over the years, many such perfectly legal but complex financial systems have evolved that help convert black money into white. Professional services firms located abroad, chartered accountants and savvy lawyers, all play a role in covering up the tracks, which perhaps no law - not even India's new antidote to black money, The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - can effectively counter or help unravel.
HOW DID NDTV LAUNDER MONEY ?
########### SUBJECT---- GURMEHAR KAUR : LIES KARGIL MARTYR--- TRUTH KEJRIWAL POODLE #############
KARGIL WAR ENDED IN JULY 1999……. GURMEHAR KAURs FATHER DIED AFTER THE KARGIL WAR WAS OVER……..
GURMEHAR KAUR HAS LINKS WITH AAP AND KEJRIWAL….
CHECK OUT THE FACEBOOK PAGE OF AAP POODLE RAM SUBRAMANIAM “VOICE OF RAM “ IN WHICH GURMEHAR KAUR HAS PUT HER VIDEO IN 2016 PROMOTING PAKISTAN AS A PEACE LOVING NATION…………
WELL MARTYRs DAUGHTER GURMEHAR KAUR HAS BECOME A DESH DROHI . ..PAKISTAN DID NOT KILL HER FATHER, WAR WAGED BY BHARATMATA DID.... MUSLIMS DID NOT BURN ALIVE HINDUS IN A RAILWAY COMPARTMENT IN GODHRA, FIRES OF HINDUs DID...........
YOU CAN SEE THAT GURMEHAR KAUR GETS SUPPORT FROM NCW, BENAMI MEDIA , NHRC , NAXALS , SEPARATISTS AND FOREIGN FUNDED NGOs..... ..
DOES SHE HAVE PROOF THAT AVBP THREATENEDTO RAPE HER ?......WHY IS SHE LYING ? PROFILE ( USE HIGH RESOLUTION CAMERAS ) ALL DESH DROHI COMMIE STUDENTS OF JNU/ DU/ JU/ FTII/ TISS WHO SHOUT ANTI-INDIA, BHARAT KE BARBAADI SLOGANS... MAKE SURE THEY GET NO EMPLOYMENT IN INDIA... MAKE SURE THEY RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST FOR PASSPORTS AND PASSPORT RENEWALS... STUPID GURMEHAR KAUR, THE DAUGHTER OF KARGIL ( SIC) MARTYR CAPT MANDEEP SINGH IS A DISGRACE TO INDIA AND A STAIN TO THE MEMORY OF HER FATHER ....
KHALISTANIS HAVE ADOPTED HER ………… GURMEHAR KAUR MAY SOON MIGRATE TO KNEDDDAAAAAA …. THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN ISLAMIC MILITANTS, KHALISTANIS AND NAXALS.. ..THEY USE THE SAME SHELL COMPANIES FOR FUNDING….…… WE KNOW WHY UMAR KHALID WAS INVITED TO SPEAK ON BASTAR NAXALS…. WHEN JAWANS ARE KILLED BY NAXALS IN BASTAR, THE JNU COMMIE STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS HOLD PARTIES TO CELEBRATE....
DESH DROHIS CAN INSULT ANY PERSON, WE WONT ALLOW ANY INSULT TO THE WATAN...
DESH DROHIS CAN INSULT ANY PERSON, WE WONT ALLOW ANY INSULT TO THE WATAN...
KHALISTANIS FROM CANADA ARE PRASING THIS SIKH GIRL…. GURMEHAR KAUR ASKED FOR HELP FROM KHALSA COLLEGE --WHY DID SHE POLARISE ?
READ ALL 11 PARTS OF THE POST BELOW -- -
Go0gle for the blogpost below- - - ……………. . . . . …... .. .
JNU , DEN OF ANTI NATIONALS AND COMMUNIST CRIMINALS VADAKAYIL ……………... . . ……. . .. . read all eight parts of the post below....... ...................................
COMMUNIST , MAOIST , NAXALITE MOVEMENTS IN INDIA EXHUMED VADAKAYIL ................................ capt ajit vadakayil ..
THIS POST IS NOW CONTINUED TO PART 9, BELOW-
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL