Revelations from the Paradise Papers, a leaked set of more than 13 million financial documents, have shed light on how the rich and famous channel funds through offshore tax havens. Among early stories spawned from the leak and published over the weekend are allegations that Russia funded Facebook and Twitter investments …

COMMENTS

Post your comment

House rules Send corrections

Add to 'My topics'

Page:

Monday 6th November 2017 15:38 GMT Adam 52

"that a forensic investigation by a leading international Cyber & Threats team concluded that there was no definitive evidence that any data had left our systems. This was not the work of anybody who works at Appleby."

In other words "Our security was poor and we didn't even have any logging. Anyone could have done it."

67 1 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 15:50 GMT Voland's right hand
  
  Live by the sword, die by the sword
  
  An interesting side effect of running a business in a tax heaven is that there is no way in hell for you to obtain a warrant in a developed country jurisdiction over data theft. The relevant treaties are not in place and that they are not in place is exactly what is allowing tax heavens to operate.
  
  40 1 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 16:05 GMT Stuart 22
    
    Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
    
    "Putting aside the fact that the leaked financial details appear to include information about the murky world of offshore finance, for the victims, this leak could have life-altering or, at the very least, hugely distressing effects."
    
    I'm almost tempted to say - "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be distressed about". But I won't as I'm not a Home Secretary.
    
    49 0 Reply
    1. Monday 6th November 2017 16:11 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
      
      Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
      
      Or in this case live by the sword, die by a couple of large men with AK47s and Russian accents saying - "Mr Putin is very disappointed in you"
      
      21 2 Reply
      1. Monday 6th November 2017 16:21 GMT Version 1.0
        
        Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
        
        "Mr Putin is very disappointed in you"
        
        No doubt why "V" took a lot of trouble to remove all traces of the intercept from the logs.
        
        8 0 Reply
        
        Monday 6th November 2017 16:27 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
        
        Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
        
        You joke but there's probably something to this. The normal pattern for a hack this size is gloating attribution, but this one was leaked to Süddeutsche Zeitung and no hacking crew has publicly claimed responsibility.
        
        I imagine the moment when they realised what sort of data they had (and who it was on) was a bit of an "oh, fuck" moment.
        
        21 0 Reply
        
        Monday 6th November 2017 18:40 GMT Voland's right hand
        
        Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
        
        The normal pattern for a hack this size is gloating attribution,
        
        Not necessarily. The so called consortium for investigative journalism actually PAYS for data dumps which are "interesting". How much - we do not know, but I suspect that it is in the 6 digit range.
        
        One of the conditions is not to make a lot of noise before it is given to them so they can analyse and coordinate the release. If you gloat you cannot get paid.
        
        9 1 Reply
        
        Monday 6th November 2017 21:41 GMT Doctor Syntax
        
        Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
        
        " If you gloat you cannot get paid."
        
        Gloating doesn't have to be public. You can gloat all the way to the bank.
        
        The only thing to worry about is that your part in one breach gets outed because it's documented in stuff that subsequently comes out when your own solicitors get breached.
        
        0 0 Reply
    2. Tuesday 7th November 2017 17:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
      
      I'm against tax avoidance and evasion and pay my taxes once the accountants are done crunching the numbers. I'd just watched with my housemate Panorama and the 9 O'clock news which was mostly a repeat of Panorama. I was explaining to her the concepts around offshore banking, money laundering, tax avoidance (legal) and tax evading (illegal). After I explained these topics in detail and my objection to not paying, I described a few ways of avoiding tax that were perfectly legal.
      
      I then said that I was thinking of starting a company on the lovely Caribbean island of Antigua, with subsidiaries in Jersey and the Isle of Man. Her reaction when I asked if she would she mind paying the rent there instead of to me was priceless. When she'd worked out I wasn't being serious she then asked why Antigua? Oh it's a nice out of the way place with a good amount of sunshine and a 5 star hotel that I can make a few business trips to. That, the fact that the US State Department don't like it and Bearer Shares*!
      
      *Antigua is attempting to be more compliant with FATF rules though.
      
      1 0 Reply
    3. Tuesday 7th November 2017 17:23 GMT JimboSmith
      
      Re: Live by the sword, die by the sword
      
      I would recommend The Great Tax Robbery by Richard Brooks if you want a good read on this subject. He wrote/writes for Private Eye has presented Panorama and was on the show last night. When he writes in that book about some of what goes on it's just staggering. Companies avoiding tax in some of the poorest nations etc.
      
      2 0 Reply
2. Monday 6th November 2017 16:58 GMT Loyal Commenter
  
  If there is no definitive evidence that any data had left [their] systems, how do they know it was the work of a hacker, and not a leaker? Presumably all they can prove is that they were hacked, not that the hackers stole the data, so if they cannot show otherwise, it is entirely plausible that a mole used this as a cover to leak the data.
  
  20 1 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 17:34 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
    
    The old - it must have been a vampire that killed her because there is no evidence of a werewolf - defence
    
    25 0 Reply
  2. Tuesday 7th November 2017 12:42 GMT Blotto
    
    @Loyal Commenter
    
    I guess they are saying they have no evidence of all the data being bulk accessed internally and have no evidence of it leaving their infrastructure, yet 3rd parties have their bulk data so the only logical conclusion is that they must have been hacked in such a sophisticated manor that the forensic investigators they hired can not determine how.
    
    Probably a government with sophisticated abilities obtained the data and was either hacked themselves or has now leaked it to do some damage to someone.
    
    That or their forensic investigators are too crap to work out what happened.
    
    I suspect that in retrospect that much data leaving the organisation would be detectable & as they can't that is why they are claiming they have been victim to a sophisticated hack.
    
    If they can be believed it will be interesting to read what their security measures are & should be a warning to all other international institutions that hold data that should remain private.
    
    2 0 Reply
    1. Tuesday 7th November 2017 22:50 GMT Roland6
      
      2+2 = 5 ! :)
      
      I guess they are saying they have no evidence of all the data being bulk accessed internally and have no evidence of it leaving their infrastructure, yet 3rd parties have their bulk data so the only logical conclusion is that they must have been hacked in such a sophisticated manor that the forensic investigators they hired can not determine how.
      
      Well it should be obvious to any El Reg reader how this hack was done:
      
      Appleby were using Kaspersky...
      
      0 0 Reply
    2. Thursday 9th November 2017 00:35 GMT Mark 65
      
      I guess they are saying they have no evidence of all the data being bulk accessed internally and have no evidence of it leaving their infrastructure, yet 3rd parties have their bulk data so the only logical conclusion is that they must have been hacked in such a sophisticated manor that the forensic investigators they hired can not determine how.
      
      Or alternatively that their security is so utterly shithouse whilst they are busy clipping the lucrative ticket on tax avoidance that they really cannot tell. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone grabbed it all with an external drive and a USB stick with Kali/Tails/whatever on it. In fact, probably just the external drive.
      
      0 0 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 15:42 GMT wolfetone

With all the coverage that's being given to Queen Liz's financial affairs (or should that be the UK tax payer's affairs?), it's upsetting to know that the real juicy story of the whole thing has been ignored.

It turns out that Bono's money moves in mysterious ways.

43 0 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 15:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  It turns out that Bono's money moves in mysterious ways.
  
  Indeed. Hypocritical little twerp that he is.
  
  36 1 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 16:13 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
    
    That's rich - when Ireland isn't enough of a tax haven for you
    
    40 0 Reply
    1. Monday 6th November 2017 16:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Paying even less tax than Ireland must be the sweetest thing.
      
      28 0 Reply
      1. Monday 6th November 2017 18:09 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
        
        I thought Bono bought Ireland in a bankruptcy sale back in 2008 ?
        
        14 0 Reply
      2. Monday 6th November 2017 18:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Magnificent.
        
        I expect his bank statements go to a obscure PO box. Somewhere where the streets have no name.
        
        29 0 Reply
        
        Monday 6th November 2017 19:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        It's a beautiful day when someone like Bono gets caught out.
        
        19 0 Reply
        
        This post has been deleted by its author
      3. Tuesday 7th November 2017 13:38 GMT Fatman
        
        RE: Paying even less tax...
        
        <quote>Paying ~~even less~~ absolutely NO tax ~~than Ireland~~ must be the sweetest thing.</quote>
        
        There!!!
        
        FTFY
        
        0 0 Reply
2. Tuesday 7th November 2017 03:30 GMT JLV
  
  wait... wait... I am confused.
  
  is that the same activist Bono who frequently complains that industrialized countries don't do enough 3rd world aid? (which presumably requires more taxation)
  
  and whose band is tax-registered in the Netherlands, because less taxes than Ireland?
  
  5 0 Reply
3. Tuesday 7th November 2017 11:01 GMT phuzz
  
  Bono's not being ignored, it's just there's so many different famous people fiddling their taxes that the press doesn't know who to start with. This will continue to play out over the next few months whilst various celebs and their lawyers refuse to comment and in the end practically nothing will change, because those in a position to do something about, for instance, tax evasion in the Channel Islands, have too much to lose.
  
  3 0 Reply
4. Tuesday 7th November 2017 13:35 GMT tiggity
  
  El Maj
  
  Given the Queen has a nice cozy arrangement with herRC where she (well, her fiancial bods) get to choose what (relatively miniscule else it would be publicized) amount of tax she pays then Cayman stuff would be financial bods on autopilot as their usual legal (cos laws are useless), but morally reprehensible offshore stuff was not needed.
  
  Not enough hassle of queenie for investing in BrightHouse, a company thet exists to shaft poor people with loan shark levels of interest repayment (where a bog standard fridge can easily be over a grand in repayments over several years): SHe has people doing the finances for her, but it;s not difficult to say only make ethical investments, do all finacial stuff in a transparent and above board way.
  
  Still, living up her figurehead of teh nation status, rich elite screwing over the proles is what the UK is all about.
  
  6 1 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 15:45 GMT deadlockvictim

I can imagine the conversation

Sir Humphrey: What I want is irrelevant, Bernard, it's up to you - what do you want?

Bernard: I want to have a clear conscience.

Sir Humphrey: A clear conscience?

Bernard: Yes!

Sir Humphrey: I see. And when did you acquire this taste for luxuries?

42 0 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 15:51 GMT Anonymous Coward

Surely to the Queen, having money in a country that she is queen of, isn't "of-shore", just in another of ones countries

42 0 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 15:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  You will go far:
  
  "Arise Sir Anonymous Coward".
  
  26 0 Reply
2. Monday 6th November 2017 16:24 GMT Adam 52
  
  Quite. The Cayman Islands are a British Overseas Territory. The Queen appoints the Governor. They've even got a Westminster cabinet minister. Hardly wild west.
  
  And, most importantly in this instance, they've got a cosy relationship with the UK taxman where they report income earned by UK residents direct to HMG.
  
  15 0 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 17:06 GMT frank ly
    
    Her Maj's private assets are estimated to be about £500m so it's hardly surprising that she had £10m tucked away there. When you have that much, you tell your people to split it up and put it in sensible places for you. (So I assume. I'll never have anything like that 'problem'.)
    
    6 1 Reply
    1. Monday 6th November 2017 17:18 GMT BebopWeBop
      
      Well one needs to squirrel ones assets away, before the revolution.....
      
      12 0 Reply
    2. Monday 6th November 2017 19:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      £500m?
      
      She's a Queen! Her corgis have more than that.
      
      1 1 Reply
    3. Tuesday 7th November 2017 07:51 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
      
      HM's mattresses
      
      @frank ly
      
      split it up and put it in sensible places
      
      Under one's mattress at Balmoral, Buckingham Palance, Sandringham and Windsor Castle are perfectly reasonable
      
      1 0 Reply
3. Thursday 9th November 2017 10:08 GMT defiler
  
  Surely to the Queen, having money in a country that she is queen of, isn't "of-shore", just in another of ones countries
  
  It'd be like leaving some cash in a coat pocket when it goes into the wardrobe. Probably just loose change between the cushions...
  
  0 0 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 16:31 GMT W Donelson

Go after Appleby directors' tax evasions.

4 1 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 20:11 GMT John Brown (no body)
  
  Can you evade or avoid tax in a tax haven?
  
  0 0 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 16:46 GMT frobnicate

"that Russia funded Facebook and Twitter"

Here is a real bomb: Russia, on the direct orders of Putin, funded all recent US governments by buying US Treasury bonds to the tune of 100B! And China... oh hell, we are doomed.

13 0 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 17:00 GMT Alan Brown
  
  Re: "that Russia funded Facebook and Twitter"
  
  "buying US Treasury bonds to the tune of 100B! "
  
  Aka less than the value Broadcom attributes to Qualcom and vastly less than the Trillions that the US spends on its military each year.
  
  4 0 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 19:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: "that Russia funded Facebook and Twitter"
    
    We haven't hit a trillion dollars in annual military spending yet. If Trump gets his way for more unneeded increases in spending, it might get to 3/4 of a trillion so we will probably reach it eventually.
    
    When trillions are talked about in the context of US military spending it is overall programs over many years, like several trillion for the post 9/11 'war on everyone' and a couple trillion for the F35 that will be spend over a couple decades.
    
    7 0 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th November 2017 00:39 GMT JLV
      
      Re: "that Russia funded Facebook and Twitter"
      
      a trillion here. a trillion there. pretty soon you're talking real money and can afford some F35s.
      
      oh, you want them to work? chip in some extra $$$$$$$$$s.
      
      4 0 Reply
Monday 6th November 2017 17:01 GMT Anonymous Coward

As with the Panama Hack I'm not impressed. Who gives the ICIJ the right to decide what gets published?

I don't care who it is I would like to know every single one that is actively avoiding tax or in fact evading it.

I mean, look at the front page of the BBC "Paradise Papers: Mrs Brown's Boys stars 'diverted £2m in offshore tax dodge'", I mean seriously is that the best you have?

It stinks of a cover up.

11 11 Reply
1. Monday 6th November 2017 17:27 GMT Adam 52
  
  The BBC article no longer says that. Possibly their lawyers got nervous. As El Reg's might if this thread continues.
  
  5 0 Reply
2. Monday 6th November 2017 17:59 GMT Red Bren
  
  "Who gives the ICIJ the right to decide what gets published?"
  
  The ICIJ spread the workload out as there was too much to sift through for any one publication. Each publication will focus on persons relevant to their home turf, as you're about as likely to be interested in the financial arrangements of some minor German celebrity as a German would be in some UK sitcom actor. So on those grounds, it makes sense to localise what is being reported.
  
  The fact that the BBC decided that sitcom actors were a more newsworthy target than some of the wealthier but unheard of entrants on the list, suggests that the BBC makes its decisions based on what the public are interested in, rather than what is in the public interest.
  
  26 0 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 21:46 GMT Doctor Syntax
    
    "the BBC makes its decisions based on what the public are interested in, rather than what is in the public interest."
    
    The media view these days seems to be that the latter means the former.
    
    4 0 Reply
  2. Wednesday 8th November 2017 04:55 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
    
    "... what the public are interested in, rather than what is in the public interest."
    
    Well put. Also part of quite a lot of other problems.
    
    1 0 Reply
3. Monday 6th November 2017 18:08 GMT Gordon 10
  
  Err you do know the Panama papers dataset was put online afterwards? If you are that paranoid I suggest you go trawling for the gaps you think exist.
  
  8 1 Reply
  1. Monday 6th November 2017 19:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    I stand corrected, I was unaware of this.
    
    In case anyone is interested,
    
    https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/pages/database
    
    Thanks.
    
    However you do still have to question how each media organisation chooses it's stories and if any are left out.
    
    Edit: I still can't download all the data, I guess its something but then how do I verify nothing has been removed?
    
    Edit 2:Added for comedy.
    
    https://twitter.com/GLove39/status/927499073971802112
    
    4 0 Reply
    1. Monday 6th November 2017 19:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      " you do still have to question how each media organisation chooses it's stories and if any are left out."
      
      You do indeed, but not just on this subject. For example a few years ago when Bob Diamond and his mate Marcus Agius were in charge at an increasingly embattled Barclays Bank, every news outlet under the Sun was covering Barclays difficulties in reasonable depth. Not for the first time, the BBC had little to say on the subject. Obviously it couldn't be connected to the little detail that Agius was a senior director on the BBC board.
      
      No potential conflict of interest there, whatever those pesky shareholders at the Barclays AGMs might have suggested on more than one occasion.
      
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/barc/9401300/BBC-executive-questions-why-Barclays-chairman-Marcus-Agius-remains-on-corporations-board.html
      
      7 1 Reply