Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

The AFP reported that Prime Minister Juncker attacked the USA by saying "The G20 has no credibility as an undertaking if Delaware, Wyoming or Nevada or far-flung islands from the United States are not on the blacklist. If there must be a blacklist then, America should have its place on it."

It is true that the USA have their own tax havens that are not targetted by the Stop tax haven Abused Act. They definitely should be.

But Prime Minister Juncker forgets that his jurisdiction is not so targetted by the USA : it was not under the US Senate investigation on tax havens.

By acting like that Prime Minister Juncker could incitate the USA to investigate on the Luxembourg issues :
- Clearstream,
- the small number of criminal cases before the courts that is said "telling" for a jurisdiction that has such a large financial center (See the Narcotics Control Strategy Reports of the last years)
- ...

By the way, Minister Frieden ("peace" in german) went to the USA a couple of days ago.
By attacking now the USA Prime Minister Juncker reveals the weakness of Luxembourg as American people were not convinced.

The Commission on the Financial crisis this week provided its report titled « Vers un nouveau modèle de croissance » (Towards a new model for growth).

As I said, when it is written that « Bien que les temps où le Luxembourg était considéré, à juste titre, comme centre offshore soient révolus … » (“Although times when Luxembourg was considered, and rightly so, as an offshore center are over…”), it is not true.

Let’s have a google search on a couple of exotic jurisdictions in the Luxembourg Corporate Registration the last 365 days.

Panama, 219 results

BVI, 82 results

British Virgin Islands, 220 results

Seychelles, 49 results

Gibraltar, 106 results

Cayman, 371 results

Bermuda, 101 results

Anguilla, 4 results

Bahrain, 14 results

Bahamas, 54 results


And so on.

All the above jurisdictions are on the unofficial OECD list of tax havens.


Furthermore in many cases foreign individuals that appear in the framework of such firms use a Luxembourg-based address whereas they actually reside abroad.

The Luxembourg tax haven is there.

The Luxembourg government has just filed on 20 March 2009 the Bill N°6017 bearing
1. Approval of the Council Act of … 29 May 2000 establishing in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.
2. Approval of the Council Act of ... 16 October 2001 establishing, in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union
3. Change to certain provisions of the criminal Instruction code and the law of 8 August 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Penal Matters


As regards regulation in the broad sense, two texts are still not transposed in the Luxembourg legislation (bills in stand by at the Chambre des Députés):

- the 8th directive on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (Bill N°5976 filed on 9 January 2009),
- the penal liability for legal persons (Bill N°5718 filed on 20 April 2007)

France also is late for some transpositions (the 8th directive was transposed only in December 2008 – Cf. Journal Officiel dated 8 December 2008), but as regards Luxembourg, which communicates that one of Luxembourg's unique strengths is its quick decision-making process - which is definitely proven for texts and actions that are “pro business” - it is unacceptable all the more than it is a small jurisdiction.



In the framework of the debate on tax havens I wish all these texts were actually enacted and enforced.