Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

Switzerland used its veto rights to withhold EUR 136,000 earmarked for cooperation between the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Group of 20 countries.
The jurisdiction is supported by Belgium, Austria and Luxembourg.

There contribution share in percentage to the OECD budget is the following :
1.500: Switzerland
1.415: Belgium
1.147: Austria
0.216: Luxembourg

The 4 jurisdictions contribute to 4.278% to the OECD budget.

Why not puting them on the blacklist once for all as this is definitely a non-cooperative attitude? The recovered money would largely compensate...

Above all this would allow Mr Gurria to respect what he wrote to Minister Frieden : "from an OECD perspective, none of our Members qualify as tax havens". If these jurisdiction are no longer OECD member, Mr Gurria will be able to qualify those that do not respect their commitment as tax havens without renunciation.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Reuters has reported that centers blacklisted last Thursday in a renewed crackdown on tax fraud were taken off the list today after committing to international standards on bank information disclosure.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that it was moving Uruguay, Costa Rica, Malaysia and the Philippines to a grey list of offenders that say they will put things right, a long list.

Dear Mr Gurria

The OECD list that was published in the context of the G 20 is neither fair nor true.

It is not fair as it stigmatise some jurisdictions on a grey list while condoning the US Tax Havens like Delaware, but it is true that the USA are the major contributor to the OECD budget and condone as well the US tax havens in the Stop Tax Havens Abuse Act.

It is not true as it does not take into account every parameter. As I wrote, harmful tax practices, corruption, money laundering… are definitely connected and must me assessed on a unique list as a whole. Furthermore it is inconsistent as the split of the grey list is not coherent: How a jurisdiction like Cayman Islands that signed 8 agreements or Netherlands Antilles, Antigua and Barbuda that signed 7 can be considered as tax havens while Austria, Chile, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland that signed none are only “Financial Centers”.

Above all I find it quite strange that a jurisdiction – Luxembourg – published a letter you sent to Minister Luc Frieden. I do not think the letter was intended to be published all the more than, because of what you wrote, it is a way for Luxembourg to make pressure.

Let’s read a couple of paragraphs:
I can confirm that the OECD is not developing new criteria to identify tax havens
I can also confirm that from an OECD perspective, none of our Members qualify as tax havens under these criteria

In a nutshell, the publication, with the abusive use of your name and image, allows Luxembourg not abide by the commitments taken, as none of the OECD Members qualified as tax havens when the letter was written all the more than the OECD is not developing new criteria to identify tax havens : for your information despite an injunction last year to introduce the penal liability for legal persons (See PR dated 27 March 2008: “OECD urges Luxembourg to introduce liability of legal persons for foreign bribery”), the provision is neither enacted nor enforced.

QED.

Yours sincerely

Jérôme Turquey
Consultant is business ethics and reputational risk
http://ethiquedesplaces.blogspirit.com






To understand the issue reported I have copied the screen of the Luxembourg governement website:



Read Angel Gurrias's letter to Luc Frieden

Such letters are confidential and it is very amazing that a jurisdiction that communicates on the respect of professional secrecy, discloses these informations.