Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

TJN has just published the Financial Secrecy Index i.e. secrecy jurisdictions that they have ranked according to both their lack of transparency and their scale of cross-border financial activity.

Number 5 is the City of London in the United Kingdom, the world's largest financial centre with a Financial Secrecy Index Value of 347.79.
Number 4 is the Cayman Islands with a Financial Secrecy Index Value of 403.48.
Number 3 is Switzerland with a Financial Secrecy Index Value of 513.40.
Number 2 is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with a Financial Secrecy Index Value of 1127.02.
Number 1 is  Delaware in the United States of America with a Financial Secrecy Index Value of 1503.80.

The average for the Financial Secrecy Index Value is 79.04 .

It is not a surprise for me to see Luxembourg with such score. I have been warning for years decision-makers in the jurisdiction to correct dysfunctions, lax behaviours. They did not that they thought that being a long-standing member of European Union, of the the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), of OECD... would provide both impunity and intouchability.

The censorship of Rainer Falk's report and the launch of LIGFI corroborate that the jurisdiction does not call itself into question.

I guess that as usual they will comment TJN's index by saying something like: Dubious index on financial secrecy: the ABBL responds. The ABBL deplores the fact that, behind a pseudo-scientific façade, this document calls into question thereputation and standards of the Luxembourg Financial Centre in general and of its members in particular. Luxembourg is a long-standing member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Its efforts to preventmoney laundering have recently been highlighted by international organisations, such as the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF). The ABBL has serious doubts about the methods used to draw up the study. The conclusions do not reflect a serious scientific approach. And blablabla.

TJN's work demonstrates to what extent OECD's work that is influenced by jurisdictions and political games is not relevant.