Hi James,
That is an important clarification - simply because someone appears to own a
shell company in Panama or elsewhere does not necessarily mean they have broken
the law. Though if their activities are so kosher, I do not understand why
politically-sensitive persons in particular have not previously declared that
they hold interests in these companies. I find it hard to believe that the
majority of shell companies have been established for legitimate purposes
(especially when we have certain law firms going out and actively encouraging
high net worth individuals to break a country's tax laws, among other things).
If the stories which had emerged from the Panama Papers were about people
stashing assets in Panama to avoid, say, their home government illegally seizing
them, that would be one thing, but those aren't the stories that I have been
reading… I suppose this is a topic for another listserv though. But your point
is taken - people should be innocent until proven guilty, and there are
legitimate reasons for shell companies.
Best wishes,
Ayden

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 6:00 PM, James Gannon [log in to unmask] wrote:
Hmm I don’t know if I agree with this as it seems to make the assumption that
forming a shell company in Panama can only be for nefarious or corrupt reasons
which is just not the facts of the matter. And its very unforuntate that the two
classes of companies or uses are bunched togher in any debate that I’ve seen
around the Panama Papers releases.
Plenty of genuine reasons for doing so that are not for illegal reasons or
reasons to undermine public goods.
-James
From: Ncuc-discuss < [log in to unmask] > on behalf of Ayden Férdeline < [log in to unmask] >
Date: Sunday 10 April 2016 at 5:48 p.m.
To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro < [log in to unmask] >
Cc: " [log in to unmask] " < [log in to unmask] >, NCUC-discuss < [log in to unmask] >
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Panama Papers - privacy, data and media manipulation - Re:
Information Internet

Hi,
Re: debate on privacy (though I prefer the term 'secrecy')
The fundamental human right to privacy is not the same as the 'right' to keep your crimes secret. I
would also argue that 1) shell companies aren't humans (though they might be
persons in some territories), and 2) corruption thrives on secrecy. And because
even a broken clock is right twice day, I will quote Michael Moore... “Openness,
transparency — these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect
itself from the powerful and the corrupt”.
Ayden

Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest