Cayman not mentioned in latest offshore leak

| 04/10/2021 | 26 Comments
Cayman News Service
Mount Rushmore in South Dakota

(CNS): The Cayman Islands is not listed among the 41 countries and territories named in the Pandora Papers, the latest cache of leaked documents from offshore firms, as jurisdictions where the law firms and financial services providers from which the confidential data was leaked were located. An investigation by the International Consortium of Journalists and more than 600 journalists representing 151 media organisations around the world has exposed details of where the world’s rich and powerful are stashing their cash.

While the Cayman Islands is often cast as the villain of offshore services, especially by Hollywood, this latest exposé of the hidden assets of politicians, criminals, celebrities, business leaders and the global wealthy elite found that two thirds of the 956 companies analysed were located in the British Virgin Islands.

Embarrassingly for the United States, the millions of documents leaked from companies hired by wealthy clients seeking to protect their assets from local taxes revealed that South Dakota is now a leading tax haven and is sheltering billions of dollars in wealth linked to individuals previously accused of serious financial crimes.

More than 100 billionaires feature in the leaked data, many of whom have used shell companies to hold luxury items, such as property, yachts and money, some of it legal and some not so much.

The Pandora Papers follow the Panama Papers in 2016 and the Paradise Papers in 2017, and the latest confidential data dump is the largest of the three. It covers details of the riches of people in 200 different countries, including well over 300 political leaders, royal family members, leaders of religious groups and drug dealers.

With leaders from all over the world exposed in the leaks, several international governments have already confirmed they have opened investigations based on the files. However, the Kremlin has said that any claims about links to Russian President Vladimir Putin are “unsubstantiated”.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,

Category: Business, Financial Services

Comments (26)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Hacktivists like Anonymous are out there looking for targets. It’s only a matter of time before the next massive breach occurs. How safe is your network safe?

  2. Bertie : B says:

    Cayman has not been mentioned Yet . Different papers articles talking about these leaks do have a tendency to keep throwing Caymans name in their articles even though Cayman has yet to be officially named . The Name Cayman Islands keeps getting mentioned . Not Fair really .

    CNS: The Guardian has a map of the 41 jurisdictions (see here) involved and Cayman is not included. So I don’t think that CI will be named in relation to this particular leak, except as a “usual suspects” type of reference.

  3. Anonymous says:

    This was news in the US for about a day and a half. North Dakota is doing fine, thanks, also Nevada. Nothing shown to require any change in US practices. Holding companies are not a new thing.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Whew!

  5. Anonymous says:

    We’re not mentioned?! I’m insulted…just kidding!! 😝.

    CNS, are you be able to publish/post a link to the Pandora papers?

    CNS: I very much doubt if they are online anywhere – this is after all confidential data and it’s also vast. There’s a lot of the findings online, though.

  6. Anonymous says:

    From the FAQ on the website

    ““In key financial centres, like the U.S., Switzerland and Australia, many of these professionals have no anti-money laundering obligations whatsoever. In countries where such obligations are in place, what we have seen is very weak implementation and enforcement,” she said.”

    US LOL…. HELLLLLOOOO FATF?!?!?!?

    https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/faq-about-the-pandora-papers#what-is-a-corporate-service-provider-who-are-the-service-providers-in-the-data

    • Anonymous says:

      The US, Australia and the European countries run the FATF so they will sadly never fully look what happens in their own back yard.

  7. Anonymous says:

    thank GOD they finanlly mentioned some US service providers – alike Denver trust co with 100,000 companies (note obama’s comment about maples & 12,000 companies lol!!!). Most people seem to think offshore are the baddies, KYC is literally non-existant in US companies.

    All the time we deal with US clients who literally have no documents showing who owns, controls or forms the company. Only the organiser. KYC with these US formation agents is a literally joke. American clients are bemused we actually need to have some proof of who owns their company….. perhaps delaware & denver should introduce UBO reporting.

    • Anonymous says:

      The lion doesn’t turn around when the small dog barks.

      All those organisations won’t be doing anything to the US just like Moscow can use biological weapons in the UK and nothing but some sanctions happen.

      Only no sanctions, no nothing… Its called military posture

    • Anonymous says:

      US doesn’t need or care about your input. Anonymity is allowed in every US state, except from the tax man. The US chases drug money more than any other jurisdiction.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Well said but unfortunately that doesn’t sell newspapers in today’s world.

  9. Anonymous says:

    “Leaked” is being used as rather inaccurate substitute for “clearly stolen” in this case. Call it what it is.

    Struggling to understand why a dislike for lawful (if on occasion distasteful) tax avoidance now appears to constitute an absolute justification for crime in the eyes of the world media.

    • Anonymous says:

      it sells papers, thats it.

    • Anonymous says:

      The people who stole the data are the ones who leaked it.

    • Anonymous says:

      People here seem more outraged at the idea of “stolen data” and breaches of precious GDPR regs than they do at things like perceived aggressive tax schemes, bribery and pilfered wealth of nations.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you to the hackers! Keep it coming!

      • Anonymous says:

        Stealing is stealing. Why is it ok for people to break into law firms and other service providers and the newspapers feel free to publish people’s private affairs because the holdings are “offshore”? How is it different from the Guardian breaking into a law firm in London and publishing what they find?

        Also, no one is mad at “aggressive tax schemes” because that’s not a crime. The “pilfered wealth” has not been proven. It assumes that people haven’t paid taxes that they otherwise should or would have. In the real world you have to prove this stuff, you can’t just assume its happening and make up projections and quote them as fact. That’s all this is. Of course there is some actual tax evasion happening offshore. Just like there is a ton of it going on onshore. But you have to prove it.

        This is just a straight-up smear campaign. If they could have shown evidence of a crime committed that might actually justify the reporting. But they can’t – it’s a complete joke. The articles are all completely vague and only imply wrongdoing. They don’t establish it. They are rife with suggestions that these are special things only rich people can do. It’s all just class warfare. Any schmuck can open an offshore company or trust. And they used to all the time. The thing they will realise quite quickly is that these entities need bank accounts. Bank are subject to FATCA and CRS. They get reported on to their local tax authority. Game over. This is true whether you have $10,000 or $10,000,000. I’m sure there are some actual clever schemes going on that manage to avoid all this. And I’d like to read about it, IF IT CAN BE PROVEN.

        The “public interest” is supposed to actually mean something. It has to accomplish an actual purpose. Just because people like gossiping which is “interesting to the public” doesn’t make it newsworthy. These news organisations are devoid of any real principles. It’s pathetic.

      • Anonymous says:

        “perceived aggressive tax schemes” – There’s a rallying cry. See, the problem you have is when you say ‘its not illegal and we won’t change the laws but we don’t want you to do it anyway because then you make money and I don’t’. And don’t even try to argue on “pilfered wealth of nations”. Its what international commerce is built on. Either change your tax systems or focus on actual criminal activity. You know, the stuff you imply is OK as long as it exposes people you don’t like to public censure (though not actual criminal charges, because, you know, laws).

        • Anonymous says:

          All of that is fine, one can talk about borderline technical legalities etc. and just because someone hasn’t been convicted in a court of law, it doesn’t mean they have acted properly or in a way that society would like them to. Not everything in this world is like a court of law, and perceptions are important.

          The optics and the explanations with these are not great – e.g. why exactly do Tony Blair/ Andrej Babiš/ Serhiy Shefir use these structure? “Being secretive”, “reducing stamp duty”, “I haven’t broken any laws” and the other explanations offered so far are hardly popular responses.

          The people who are initiating this are certainly onshore, the offshore guys are useful facilitators and get a cut of the loot. I think we can confidently say that the majority of voters onshore are generally not pleased about these arrangements.

          It is true – the tax systems and laws do need to change, and that begins onshore and with voters in those jurisdictions. Technicalities aside, the leaked papers will go a long way to changing the way voters onshore will think and vote.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you really struggling to understand this? Then try to understand the insatiable human desire for scandal and drama that drives the world media, reality television and the gossip in nearly every workplace.

  10. Anonymous says:

    What should have been the real story are the catalogues of onshore businesses, brokers, and realtors that have no qualms whatsoever dealing with “no questions” all-cash buyers, failing completely to drill into UBOs, or source of funds. That’s where the real laundering happens and the FATF should be all over those criminal-hosting governments.

    Instead, the focus seems to be on non-resident celebrities and athletes being trialed by public jury, for honestly and legally keeping foreign sourced income out of a former residential tax jurisdiction. There is no journalistic “greater public good” in drawing inferences and slandering people. I hope some of the innocent named sue some of these newspapers that have lost their way, openly violating GDPR using stolen data.

    Focus should instead be on the despots that have actually stolen money from their poor. 700 high-ranking in Pakistan alone. Go get those guys.

    • Anon says:

      FATF are the problem. Political talking shop where they have no balls to tackle the big boys. And even if they do tackle a jurisdiction, how long does it take for them to act and then how weak is that action. The world needs an international, independent body with teeth.

    • Anonymous says:

      Newspapers have a very wide public interest exemption from GDPR, so it’s unlikely that any of them will be actually in violation, even if the data was stolen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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