Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

According to research by tax law firms KPMG Meijburg and De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, funds investing in the Netherlands rather than Luxemburg can save an annual 0.7% in costs and financial services are cheaper.

Furthermore supervisory authorities are more approachable in the Netherlands.



I am upset with the wording "authorities more approachable". Does that mean "more comprehensive" with the meaning of lax ?

As Professor Unger wrote "International and supranational organizations, such as the OECD and the EU, reproach the Netherlands for being a de facto tax haven for non-residents. Within Europe the Netherlands is classified together with Luxembourg and Ireland as engaged in harmful tax practices. The United States even compares it with Bermuda and the Cayman Islands (Sullivan 2004). One US commentator has recently shown that the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has classified the Netherlands as one of the largest tax havens in Europe."

The question is the credibility of sanctions by the supervision authority on the one hand, and of the action of the financial intelligence unit on the other hand.

This point wants clarifying to be fair with Luxembourg that has one of the best FIU because it is currently the prosecuting authority and not an administrative body with no power.

See article from Dutch News

See article from Les Echos (in French)