Diplomats and Swiss bank accounts
I wonder how many names appear in both sets of leaked documents.
A Swiss national, about to go on trial for breaking the country's strict secrecy laws, has handed Julian Assange two CDs containing names of 2,000 holders of secret Swiss bank accounts. Rudolf Elmer used to be chief operating officer for the Cayman Islands office of the private Swiss bank Julius Baer. Elmer is going on trial …
First if any of Assange's supporters names are present, those posts won't see the light of day.
Second. Assange is 'assisting' the Fraud department for two reasons...
1) He's trying to score brownie points with the Brit Govt.
2) He's trying to angle for a reward.
In the US if you are the whistle blower, you might be in line for a reward. An example. A guy blew the whistle on Oracle's overcharging the US Govt $$$$ on contracts. Consider the reward to be a nice retirement package. ;-)
Manning is being held in a military brig under the US military law. Much worse than civilian law with respect to detainment.
But I do agree with you in your sentiment as to what one should expect from Wikileaks if you send information to Wikileaks.
But that is not to say that I don't believe in *true* whistle blowing.
I just don't believe in Assange.
Isn't there a legal contradiction here?
If the 'leaker' is found guilty of a crime and sent to prison or whatever, can the information he provided legally be used in a trial?
If so, and the information leads to someone else being charged with a crime (tax evasion for example) then surely the guy would have been guilty of with-holding evidence if he hadn't made it available (ok it should have been to the Police but hey-ho).
Wouldn't that mean that the banking secrecy laws are illegal too? (as they require their signatories to break the law by with-holding evidence).
firstly on the laws of the land where any case is held. However, generally material obtained by criminal means is not accepted as evidence. But it can be accepted as a tip-off as to where to look for evidence that may be used in court or who to talk to. As to bank secrecy versus assistance in tax evasion or fraud there are usually limits on the amounts concerned when the authorities must be informed and bilateral agreements between countries usually explicitly forbid banks in one country from advising citizens in another how they made evade tax.
Tax evasion is pernicious and crack downs are to be welcomed. If the rich buggers concerned actually paid what they siphon off tax rates for everyone could probably be reduced.
"However, generally material obtained by criminal means is not accepted as evidence"
Do you have any evidence for that or is this just another piece of Anglo-centric shortsightedness? It appears to be true of the USA and partially true of the UK but it is not true in Norway. As far as I know the evidence is admissible however collected but those providing it could be prosecuted in a separate case for whatever transgressions they perpetrated. What the situation is in Switzerland I don't know.
"TRUTH OR DUE PROCESS? THE USE OF ILLEGALLY GATHERED EVIDENCE IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIAL IN NORWAY
By public prosecutor at the office of the DPP, Ph.D. Runar Torgersen
I. THE GENERAL THEORY OF ADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGALLY GATHERED
A. Constitutional or Statutory Rules
1. No Written General Exclusionary Rules
In Norwegian criminal procedure it has never been any written rules on exclusion of illegally
gathered evidence, neither constitutional nor statutory. This is now different in civil procedure;
the 2005 Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (the Dispute Act), 1 section 22-
7 contains a provision – “prohibition against improperly obtained evidence”. 2 The dominating
principle in both criminal and civil procedure is, however, that of “free proof” (i.e. all evidential
material should be adjudicated without any set rules as to its interpretation or weight). In this
respect, Norwegian evidence law shares the common law axiom that all relevant evidence can be
admitted, even though this foundational principle is not absolute."
"Norwegian courts do not attach the same weight to judicial precedents as members of the judiciary in common law countries traditionally have done. Neither are Norwegian courts bound by intricate rules concerning the admissibility of evidence; the basic rule is that all evidence is admissible."
... as long as those who committed the crime are not state or government actors. That is to say that the criminals who stole the evidence did so on their own without any direction from the government.
So if a bunch of criminals broke in to a bank vault, stole some sekret documents then mailed a copy of them to the local police station... that would be admissible. Were those crooks urged to break in to a specific vault by the police to obtain evidence, then the documents would not be admissible. (Good luck in proving that though.)
So the government (US) couldn't commit a crime to gather evidence to support its case. However it could take and use any evidence that was obtained legally.
Now here's the fun part. 'Fruit of a poisonous tree'. That is if the evidence was obtained indirectly as a result of an illegal act by the state, then the evidence is out.
(And the burden of the defense is to show that the evidence was found from an illegal act.)
As an earlier poster noted, that applies to the US only. UK laws are probably similar, but not exactly.
Defense may have the burden to prove, but unlike the Defense, the Prosecution is required to provide any potentially mitigating evidence to the Defense. This is precisely the grounds on which the Ted Stevens bribery charges were reversed: Prosecution knew of evidence suggesting possible evidence tampering and didn't inform the Defense, so the whole case got thrown out even after the initial verdict was rendered.
...we're about to learn how Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (whistle) Northgot Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat (laughs) (squeaker) Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith of the Very Silly party funded his election campaign. Who knows, maybe other members of the family used the same bank too.
"breaking the country's strict secrecy laws"
Strictly speaking Mr Whistler van Blower was working within the legal purvey of a British Overseas Territory, so when it is the Swiss government and not the British government bailing out those banks then they can pretend Switzerland has a credible claim to the islands/country. (Of course Britain only bailed out the Cayman Island banks after Cameron's dropped demands that the territory actual pay some tax, but why have one rule for RBS and another for BOTs I suppose). Just because Switzerland is persecuting Islamic places of worship and being embarrassed by Wikileaks does not mean they also get to impose their sovereignty willie-nillie... and lets not even mention those gold teeth that where filling up Swiss cashier drawers during the mid-1940s.
Here we go, more Assange bashing!
While I am in no way asserting that Assange is squeeky clean or innocent! Why don't some people seem to get beyond Assange? He's not even important in the scheme of these leaks. If he has broken the law, fair enough he'll get his just do's (there are people who will make sure of it).
More interesting is the information being disseminated and the effects that will have. I am interested in how these people are using the system. Knowing the truth about what is going on can only be a good thing in the end. sure some are going to get their collars felt or get a bit hot under the collar, so what, not like they havn't been screwing the rest of us over for years!
And before anyone goes on about privacy. I really wouldn't care what people found out about me to be honest, I havn't done anything wrong!
what I mean. Nobody should go around flaunting their information, that's just a safety issue.
But if someone should happen to steal or get a hold of it that would be my own responsibility for not taking precautions!
You know, like the military not being able to keep it's own Classified information safe?
They went to a nice bank known for protecting their depositors. Only now an employee of that bank is publishing their information. All of it.
I'd dare say you'd be the first one screaming for the head of the local teller if they published all your financial data in a Swedish blog without so much as an email to you before hand.
the way things are with my finances right now, it would be really boring! I still can't see what the big deal would be unless you are either doing something wrong or it allowed people to get access to your money...
Saying all that, I do understand the whole privacy thing. I honestly understand you point of view. I'm not just being awkward to be awkward!
But I would expect the bank to take responsibility for the leak as they are responsible for the data protection. Whomever stole it should be done for breaking the law and I do believe this Swiss chap is already in legal trouble for it!
Where it does get hazy is when you include things like Wikileaks, as long as they did not conspire to steal the data it's pretty much fair game. That's how whistleblowing works!
In the end, the data should have been protected better!
(Sorry if this is a bit everywhere in a bit of a rush!)
"And before anyone goes on about privacy. I really wouldn't care what people found out about me to be honest, I havn't done anything wrong!"
You sir clearly do not know your history. Being Jewish or Catholic at certain points in history could earn you a death sentence.
Imagine that you gave a friend some money because he was a bit strapped for cash. Then you're travelling abroad on holiday. However a border official locks you up, without a trial, because you help fund a terrorist cell which your friend works for. You did nothing wrong in your eyes, but the current law would be against you.
Will be interesting if this set of docs actually turns up anything interesting or incriminating...
After all everyone knows the likes of Vodafone and so on siphon money though a zillion different channels, the firm I work for technically has a HQ in the cayman islands, etc etc. plus of course lord ashcroft and all that..
If this reveals that some members of the cabinet have a very "efficient" organisation of their assets going on then maybe we'll see some fireworks ("we're all in this together" and so on) but what with the negative publicity and over exposure of wikileaks lately perhaps any revelations will not capture the attention of the media...
wait and see I guess
It will be interesting to see what corrupt money games the rich and powerful are playing via swiss bank accounts. If its anything like BCCI it should help shock a few more people into seeing the shocking depths of corruption going on behind our backs.
I still don't think most people realise the full extent of what was going on at BCCI, which after a decade of investigations has been described as "the biggest clandestine money network in history." e.g.
both obtains and publicises more information on the devious means by which the rich protect their incomes and their fortunes from the taxes to which we plebians are subject. And if, in the event, they also obtain and publish information on just how much money such figures as the Reg's Andrew Orlowski have contributed to the Bradley Manning defense fund (http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/858/1/), that would be a plus - perhaps the sanctimonious Mr Orlowski has matched Wikileak's contribution ? (Of course, contributing to the fund may in certain venues leave one vulnerable to the charge of «supporting terrorism», but given the interest Mr Orlowski seems to have in Wikileaks' financial activities, he certainly won't mind if others take an interest in his....
If you read the news print outside of El Reg, the 'ex-banker' has already promised that he's sending only redacted documents to Wikileaks. As stated... NO NAMES.
So I seriously doubt that they would contain anything juicy.
Of course, then Assange has to go through and redact the documents further.
You can bet that if any of his 'patrons' have their information included, it will most likely never see the light of day.
Big Brother is always watching. Also just a footnote... The US Government had already been working with the Swiss with respect to tax evaders so nothing new here. Anyone from Britain want to comment on what their govt. has been doing?
CH banking and US residents is a no go. Citizens and residents are being ordered to close accounts as far as I know. I don't know the extent of it, but I know it is happening.
The secrecy does not exist.
sidenote: thanks to both the government re-vitalization investment schemes (read debt,) the war effort (read debt,) and the lovely Wall St. financial shennanigans; the USD has taken a plunge into the toilet whereas the CHF is stumbling along a bit better in comparison. Almost like the Pound tanking after WWII.
So let's say WikiLeaks published a list of everyone who had offered a workman cash in exchange for a VAT [sales tax] discount (ahem). Maybe you have been one of those workmen. Or perhaps you have bought some "duty free" booze or fags on shore. And of course you have all declared 'tips' for income tax where applicable.
You would all be applauding then?
Is there a moral difference between 'tax efficiency' and (say) mowing down civilians from a helicopter gunship?
Indeed might one argue there is a moral imperative to withhold tax from governments which prosecute wars on a false pretext, shunt billions into the troughs of management consultancies etc?
"Tax efficiency" in the case of Vodafone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/vodafone-tax-case-leaves-sour-taste) is something that the UK pop'n rightly get very pissed off about, so to smell more of a whiff about yet more tax money laundering going on by the rich, especially when the public sector are having jobs cut and the UK are in a recession, leaves somewhat of a bitter taste.
Besides, stop being so serious, pick up your gun and fire it into the air like everyone else - it's fun!
Banks made money from creating Mortgage backed securities. Lots of money.
It was a way to reduce risk.
But they made assumptions concerning the quality of the underlying loans....
Mortgage brokers, did whatever they could to generate loans. They made their commissions and moved on.
The mortgage backed securities could withstand a couple of bad loans because the securities were based on a pool of like mortgages.
But when there were too many bad loans... poof.
Not to worry, someone wrote a security to hedge against this.. and sold it off to someone who would be on the hook if the mortgage pool collapsed. (In theory if the loans were good, this would never happen.) It should have been a 'safe bet'.
Then you have the US Government adding liquidity to the market through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why? Well some economists believe it was to help slow the gap between the really rich and well everyone else who is now living paycheck to paycheck.
So you have a perfect storm.
No single person to blame. The Housing Boom Fed the economy which meant more people could buy Chinese made products. (Thanks Wal*Mart!) The bubble inflated then burst. Only guys who had money, didn't get sucked in to the boom made out like bandits. (Soros, Buffet, etc...) These guys are just bottom feeders. They attempt to do good as a way of easing their conscience.
Sorry, no secret here.
They REQUIRED some of those bad loans to be made in order to eliminate non-existent redlining. This is what actually initiated the creation of MBSs. The bankers knew the loans were bad and didn't want to sit on them. The only way to ditch them was to slice them up with known good loans. Except that in the process the bad loans got upgraded to fully performing loans. And eventually there were to many bad loans in the mix. But by then the entire system was overwhelmed. All because some self-righteous leftists in Congress wanted to make wealth distribution more fair.
Surely this must be unlawful processing of personal information under the Data Protection Act.
Having seen the photos of Assange being handed the CDs the Information Commisioner should have been out with blue lights to stop this illegal activity. Ahhhh, I forgot, nobody takes the DPA seriously.
The UK uses evidence gained from a 3rd party using torture.
This is the same thing, evidence gained illegally, but from a 3rd party.
The only difference is this stuff is probably true and not what some poor sod said to make the pain go away.
it makes me laugh, people talking about the legality of things governments do. Governments will do whatever they want to irrespective of laws the plebs have to live by.
Anyway. I am starting to think that this list of names will be heavily edited by Assange to placate the Uk gov, so will be of little use or interest to us, and remove any credibility J had left.
While we know that the list will include names of people like Ashcroft et al, these wont appear on wikileaks
We have built up a world where copying $5 worth of music will earn you fines in the multi-millions, while it remains perfectly acceptable for the rich to dodge hundreds of millions in tax that could otherwise be used to fight real crime (not pretend crime like having the gall to have a dead relative with a crooked gravestone that "might hurt somebody"), feeding the genuinely impoverished, or building safe roads (and then letting people actually drive on them).
They might say that what they do is legal but they know that it is wrong.
Tax courts are rather different from courts of law.
They're presided over by a tax inspector and there are NO restrictions on where the evidence comes from.
Tax court findings can be challenged up into the law courts but the evidence issues stay the same and the costs are generally prohibitive (it's usually easier to pay the fines - part of the reason why when there are outrageous amounts owing the courts will cut a deal and accept lower payments)
This holds pretty much universally true in every country. You can commit all the crime you want but don't even think about shortchanging your local customs and revenue departments.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020