US passes anti-corruption law that effectively bans anonymous shell companies(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
US passes anti-corruption law that effectively bans anonymous shell companies
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-passes-historic-anti-corruption-legislation-that-effectively-bans-anonymous-shell-companies-b1781380.html
321 comments
> This seems like the government stumping on small money launderers while giving the big guys a tax: employ some people, and rent some real-estate
I did work on this bill (my Congresswoman is its author). Let me defend the thresholds.
The point of this bill is to require beneficial ownership disclosure for shell companies. Legal ownership of an entity is one thing. The beneficial owner is the human who ultimately owns and controls the entity [1].
Tracing the beneficial owners of economically-active entities (i.e. not shell companies [2]) is expensive. Imagine doing this for Apple. You would need to look through every ETF that holds it to its mutual fund owners to their pension fund owners to their holding companies to their pensioners. That is a multimillion dollar exercise, largely useless and reasonably opposed. This expense in its extreme stopped similar legislation in the past. As a result, someone from Russia could create a BVI company that opens a Delaware LLC and gain near-total transactional anonymity.
This bill tries to exempt economically active entities. The thresholds are easy to identify, reducing paperwork, while low with respect to most companies. (Small businesses have simple ownership structures and a small number of beneficial owners.) The bill is not a general anti-money laundering bill. If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are doing something else (and more common).
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_corporation
I did work on this bill (my Congresswoman is its author). Let me defend the thresholds.
The point of this bill is to require beneficial ownership disclosure for shell companies. Legal ownership of an entity is one thing. The beneficial owner is the human who ultimately owns and controls the entity [1].
Tracing the beneficial owners of economically-active entities (i.e. not shell companies [2]) is expensive. Imagine doing this for Apple. You would need to look through every ETF that holds it to its mutual fund owners to their pension fund owners to their holding companies to their pensioners. That is a multimillion dollar exercise, largely useless and reasonably opposed. This expense in its extreme stopped similar legislation in the past. As a result, someone from Russia could create a BVI company that opens a Delaware LLC and gain near-total transactional anonymity.
This bill tries to exempt economically active entities. The thresholds are easy to identify, reducing paperwork, while low with respect to most companies. (Small businesses have simple ownership structures and a small number of beneficial owners.) The bill is not a general anti-money laundering bill. If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are doing something else (and more common).
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_corporation
Just wanted to say thank you for chiming in about the bill. I know some folks are jumping your shit, but it's nice to read a boots on the ground perspective. Sounds like this was a bill about managing proper red flags, minimize false positives and not creating a slippery slope. From my understanding, that's where a lot of push back from the past has been.
Piling on to the thank-you wagon. My cousin works at the GAO and often has interesting stories about policy nuance that would be really difficult to realize without that inside perspective.
I appreciate the intentions behind this bill, and I'm sure we'll find far more corruption than we ever expected through this bill.
I'm reminded of the Patriot Act, and the ways the data collected were used (beneficially), and abused (for personal reasons) by people trusted with high-level clearance. How is access being limited and audited to the data collected by this new bill?
I feel the same way about the government grant system relying on the DUNS system (run by a private company) for business registration. I also feel this way about credit agencies like Experian and Equifax being the trusted source of truth on creditworthiness for Fannie Mae loans, and collecting records on essentially all Americans (no consumer choice and limited opt-out) which inevitably gets leaked. The liability of Experian and Equifax should have been their entire businesses, not a few slaps on the wrist and the offer of credit monitoring for just a year.
With all that in mind, I want to know--when this bill is implemented, how is this not inevitably going to result in abuses or harmful massive leaks? Or do you just assume that entities below a certain threshold of activity don't deserve privacy or some level of property obscurity to help people avoid criminal attention?
The kind of info this bill is collecting could be easily be used by identity thieves. Sharing this info with foreign entities makes the problem worse.
Civil forfeiture started off with good intentions, but in many places has a serious lack of recourse and oversight. There have been some reports that it's abused as a quick way for police departments to pad their budgets. Those doing the seizing don't even need to prove guilt of a person, since civil forfeiture is a dispute between police and property, not police and a suspected person. Sure, these policies let police cripple the more clever criminals that they had trouble bringing to justice, but it also gets used all the time in ways against people (I guess against property) that would reasonably argue innocence.
I'm reminded of the Patriot Act, and the ways the data collected were used (beneficially), and abused (for personal reasons) by people trusted with high-level clearance. How is access being limited and audited to the data collected by this new bill?
I feel the same way about the government grant system relying on the DUNS system (run by a private company) for business registration. I also feel this way about credit agencies like Experian and Equifax being the trusted source of truth on creditworthiness for Fannie Mae loans, and collecting records on essentially all Americans (no consumer choice and limited opt-out) which inevitably gets leaked. The liability of Experian and Equifax should have been their entire businesses, not a few slaps on the wrist and the offer of credit monitoring for just a year.
With all that in mind, I want to know--when this bill is implemented, how is this not inevitably going to result in abuses or harmful massive leaks? Or do you just assume that entities below a certain threshold of activity don't deserve privacy or some level of property obscurity to help people avoid criminal attention?
The kind of info this bill is collecting could be easily be used by identity thieves. Sharing this info with foreign entities makes the problem worse.
Civil forfeiture started off with good intentions, but in many places has a serious lack of recourse and oversight. There have been some reports that it's abused as a quick way for police departments to pad their budgets. Those doing the seizing don't even need to prove guilt of a person, since civil forfeiture is a dispute between police and property, not police and a suspected person. Sure, these policies let police cripple the more clever criminals that they had trouble bringing to justice, but it also gets used all the time in ways against people (I guess against property) that would reasonably argue innocence.
> how is this not inevitably going to result in abuses or harmful massive leaks?
There probably will be abuses and leaks—-I don’t think anyone should trust the government with population-wide data that is catastrophic if compromised. But on the ladder of OPM data and IRS tax records to e.g. potato registries, beneficial ownership data isn’t that sensitive. Many countries make it a matter of public record with few ill effects. (Counterpoint: Sweden makes tax records public record. The IRS being compromised would be a big deal.)
The church, charity and non-profit exemption is the hole of the bulldozer path that had to be left to protect private civic discourse. This will be abused by the wealthy and powerful. But as a result, there will be no comprehensive database of e.g. donors to prison reform or LGBT causes.
There probably will be abuses and leaks—-I don’t think anyone should trust the government with population-wide data that is catastrophic if compromised. But on the ladder of OPM data and IRS tax records to e.g. potato registries, beneficial ownership data isn’t that sensitive. Many countries make it a matter of public record with few ill effects. (Counterpoint: Sweden makes tax records public record. The IRS being compromised would be a big deal.)
The church, charity and non-profit exemption is the hole of the bulldozer path that had to be left to protect private civic discourse. This will be abused by the wealthy and powerful. But as a result, there will be no comprehensive database of e.g. donors to prison reform or LGBT causes.
> Counterpoint: Sweden makes tax records public record. The IRS being compromised would be a big deal.
It would be a big deal only because it would shatter current expectations. As you've mentioned, society would operate just fine if everyone's tax records were public. The aversion that people feel towards it is largely cultural - if they were brought up in a different western society, they wouldn't feel that way.
It would be a big deal only because it would shatter current expectations. As you've mentioned, society would operate just fine if everyone's tax records were public. The aversion that people feel towards it is largely cultural - if they were brought up in a different western society, they wouldn't feel that way.
Interesting. Why targeting money specifically? If someone claims that people should not have secrets about their wallets, others may claim no one should have secrets about their bedrooms. After all, "It would be a big deal only because it would shatter current expectations. Society would operate just fine if everyone's affairs were public. The aversion that people feel towards it is largely cultural - if they were brought up in a different society, they wouldn't feel that way" right?
For most people, most of their bedroom activities are public in the US. Specifically, they are recorded in public marriage records that anyone can peruse.
Thank you for making my point.
Thank you for making my point.
I actually doubt it. Primatologists notice that humans in general have sex in private (and face to face) unlike all other primates.
> others may claim no one should have secrets about their bedrooms.
What does that even mean?
What does that even mean?
It would shatter current illusions, too. Definitely a move for the better.
"Potato registries"?
I don't know if the US has one, but many European countries do.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-seed-potato-classification-s...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-seed-potato-classification-s...
> How is access being limited and audited to the data collected by this new bill?
Why should it be? There's no sensible reason why ownership of a company should have to be kept secret, AFAICS. If your company does shit so shady you're ashamed to stand up and admit to it, that shit is probably so shady it already is — or should be — illegal anyway.
Why should it be? There's no sensible reason why ownership of a company should have to be kept secret, AFAICS. If your company does shit so shady you're ashamed to stand up and admit to it, that shit is probably so shady it already is — or should be — illegal anyway.
[deleted]
Hi, I skimmed the bill and some explanations after finding out about it last night.
I feel like this bill doesn't actually change anything. Look at your example: "Someone from Russia could create a BVI company that opens a Delaware LLC and gain near-total transactional anonymity."
Your bill exempts every nominee or person paid to form the business. That is completely common practice, and also benefits the exact people you made this bill for?
Let me be absolutely clear, when I think about MY user experience, nothing has changed? If my registered agent formed the business with one of their employees names, or if my lawyer did that, in both circumstances there would never be a report to the Treasury for them, and there would never be a report for me.
I don't actually want a burdensome regulation, but I also don't feel Congress actually cares about this since this was just a rider into an actually politically charged bill, so I don't mind talking to you about it:
How does this bill accomplish anything if it exempts everything that real people actually do, let alone anyone trying to mask ownership and control.
I feel like this bill doesn't actually change anything. Look at your example: "Someone from Russia could create a BVI company that opens a Delaware LLC and gain near-total transactional anonymity."
Your bill exempts every nominee or person paid to form the business. That is completely common practice, and also benefits the exact people you made this bill for?
Let me be absolutely clear, when I think about MY user experience, nothing has changed? If my registered agent formed the business with one of their employees names, or if my lawyer did that, in both circumstances there would never be a report to the Treasury for them, and there would never be a report for me.
I don't actually want a burdensome regulation, but I also don't feel Congress actually cares about this since this was just a rider into an actually politically charged bill, so I don't mind talking to you about it:
How does this bill accomplish anything if it exempts everything that real people actually do, let alone anyone trying to mask ownership and control.
> Your bill exempts every nominee or person paid to form the business
Yes, we already know who the legal owners of entities are.
Under this bill, if you pay a registered agent to form an LLC you control, your name is recorded. That is not presently done. It’s been pushed back on, particularly by the real estate industry, for decades.
Yes, we already know who the legal owners of entities are.
Under this bill, if you pay a registered agent to form an LLC you control, your name is recorded. That is not presently done. It’s been pushed back on, particularly by the real estate industry, for decades.
> Under this bill, if you pay a registered agent to form an LLC you control, your name is recorded.
Okay I misread that in the law review documents. So anyone acting on behalf of the beneficial owner is not reported, but the beneficial owner still is.
This is in line with some other countries that are vying for respect by reforming.
I don't mind it being on-file privately with the government, and this bill doesn't change anything with publicly perusable databases, nor create a new one.
Okay I misread that in the law review documents. So anyone acting on behalf of the beneficial owner is not reported, but the beneficial owner still is.
This is in line with some other countries that are vying for respect by reforming.
I don't mind it being on-file privately with the government, and this bill doesn't change anything with publicly perusable databases, nor create a new one.
> this bill doesn't change anything with publicly perusable databases, nor create a new one
Correct. I have seen arguments for such databases, and might support it in limited cases (e.g. for public officials). But I think, personally, beneficial ownership information should be afforded privacy similar to tax returns.
Correct. I have seen arguments for such databases, and might support it in limited cases (e.g. for public officials). But I think, personally, beneficial ownership information should be afforded privacy similar to tax returns.
> But I think, personally, beneficial ownership information should be afforded privacy similar to tax returns.
Out of curiosity, could you explain why? What would be the risks if this information were publicly available?
Out of curiosity, could you explain why? What would be the risks if this information were publicly available?
That your friends/neighbours/family members could snoop at your finances. This can fracture relationships.
It's the same reason why i would want my medical data to be private, but available to relevant gov't agencies for public health reasons.
It's the same reason why i would want my medical data to be private, but available to relevant gov't agencies for public health reasons.
> But I think, personally, beneficial ownership information should be afforded privacy similar to tax returns.
I agree. Not only similar, but exactly the same.
Only I'm Swedish.
I agree. Not only similar, but exactly the same.
Only I'm Swedish.
In what part of the formation process do you feel this report is to be made?
Let's say if I walked to the secretary of state in Wyoming and paid them cash to form a new entity, where is the Treasury report supposed to be done? Is there a notification somewhere?
Does the Federal Government even have a way of knowing when a new entity is created in all of the incorporated states and other semi-autonomous regions? Not all the states have free public databases.
Is this bill going to sanction the states until they give information automatically about newly formed and existing entities?
Does this apply to indigenous protectorates? Navajo nation has incorporation statutes, and literally any of other the 560+ tribes could as well.
Let's say if I walked to the secretary of state in Wyoming and paid them cash to form a new entity, where is the Treasury report supposed to be done? Is there a notification somewhere?
Does the Federal Government even have a way of knowing when a new entity is created in all of the incorporated states and other semi-autonomous regions? Not all the states have free public databases.
Is this bill going to sanction the states until they give information automatically about newly formed and existing entities?
Does this apply to indigenous protectorates? Navajo nation has incorporation statutes, and literally any of other the 560+ tribes could as well.
[deleted]
What if a lawyer hired by a company is the person initiating the registration?
Company -> hires lawyer to register Company2 -> Company2 -> hires lawyer to register Company3 -> etc.
Company -> hires lawyer to register Company2 -> Company2 -> hires lawyer to register Company3 -> etc.
> What if a lawyer hired by a company is the person initiating the registration?
Beneficial ownership is an old legal concept. It traces through entities to natural persons. Until one gets to the controlling humans, the search keeps running. It is a powerful and costly tool.
So short answer: no, daisy chaining lawyers and entities wouldn’t hide you.
Beneficial ownership is an old legal concept. It traces through entities to natural persons. Until one gets to the controlling humans, the search keeps running. It is a powerful and costly tool.
So short answer: no, daisy chaining lawyers and entities wouldn’t hide you.
[deleted]
Do you know if the beneficial ownership information is (likely to be) subject to the Freedom of Information Act? I ask because this kind of information can be in the public interest.
Edit: the Washington Post article on this says “ The general public won’t have access to the ownership data, a disappointment to anti-corruption campaigners, who say public scrutiny would help combat criminal activity.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou...
Edit: the Washington Post article on this says “ The general public won’t have access to the ownership data, a disappointment to anti-corruption campaigners, who say public scrutiny would help combat criminal activity.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou...
Doesn’t FOIA only apply to government agencies, not companies and corporations?
This law requires ownership to be reported to FinCEN, a government agency. So it's natural to ask if a FOIA to FinCEN could get this information. It probably won't work though.
probably not, it'd be like asking the IRS for information on taxpayers. You won't be able to get your neighbor's AGI over the past four years, but you probably could get some summary or overall statistics on the income of people in your city or state.
It's a felony for tax return information to be disclosed without authorization (e.g. 26 US Code § 6103), though it still happens sometimes.
I don't see anything in the bill language that restricts the disclosure, much less makes an unauthorized disclosure a crime.
I don't see anything in the bill language that restricts the disclosure, much less makes an unauthorized disclosure a crime.
It is a good thing for privacy though, people use business entities like this for legitimate purposes to protect their privacy so the world does not know where they live, the car they drive, etc etc etc
The is the problem with "anti-corruption" efforts, is that always hurts people that have legitimate reasons or simply desire to live anonymous lives
The is the problem with "anti-corruption" efforts, is that always hurts people that have legitimate reasons or simply desire to live anonymous lives
I wish more people considered this. Lots of people keep pushing to get rid of cash, for example, because it will "reduce terrorism" or "reduce money laundering" or whatever. But I like using cash, because I don't want my bank, or an anti-money-laundering authority, or anyone else to know what I buy, when, why, how much, or from whom. It has nothing to do with illegal activity, or buying drugs, or whatever.
My parents and grandparents told me about the days before centralized documentation. A birth certificate was sufficient documentation, and of course those could be changed. One could lie about his birthday and not get caught. These days, no one is a person at all unless the government says he is, and even then, he is only the person the government says he is: I knew someone who was a transgender; she couldn't call herself a woman in many contexts until the government said so. This idea of constantly proving that you are who you claim to be, backed by government verification, strikes me as a bad direction to go.
My parents and grandparents told me about the days before centralized documentation. A birth certificate was sufficient documentation, and of course those could be changed. One could lie about his birthday and not get caught. These days, no one is a person at all unless the government says he is, and even then, he is only the person the government says he is: I knew someone who was a transgender; she couldn't call herself a woman in many contexts until the government said so. This idea of constantly proving that you are who you claim to be, backed by government verification, strikes me as a bad direction to go.
I agree, but I feel that measures that are only available to the wealthy (like putting your finances behind an anonymous corporation) are making things worse. The powerful, who are in the best position to bring about change, are shielded from the consequences of the pervasive loss of privacy and so have little reason to do anything about it.
You don't need to be especially wealthy to own your home via a corporation. It's essentially a one time cost of a few hundred dollars plus a small annual registration fee.
Presumably this law still will be easily avoided by the sufficiently wealthy-- some kind of finance structure involving loans and whatever where a nominee is the legal beneficial owner. ... and outright criminals will just break it, because its not like violations of it will be detected quickly and if they are detected the criminals will already have worse problems.
Or just purchase a 'real' business that engages in some unrelated activity to own the property... Which is something just about every money launderer already does! It just has to be over the size threshold in this bill, essentially leaving this avenue open only to the wealthy.
Presumably this law still will be easily avoided by the sufficiently wealthy-- some kind of finance structure involving loans and whatever where a nominee is the legal beneficial owner. ... and outright criminals will just break it, because its not like violations of it will be detected quickly and if they are detected the criminals will already have worse problems.
Or just purchase a 'real' business that engages in some unrelated activity to own the property... Which is something just about every money launderer already does! It just has to be over the size threshold in this bill, essentially leaving this avenue open only to the wealthy.
The limits here speak to the exact opposite, it did not take a whole lot of money (a few hundred dollars) to create a fictitious entity to hold your home or other property so that is does not appear on public property tax records.
This was not a tool "only for the wealthy" and since the limits of the law are fairly low before the law no longer applies it is clear this law IS NOT targeting "the wealthy"
This was not a tool "only for the wealthy" and since the limits of the law are fairly low before the law no longer applies it is clear this law IS NOT targeting "the wealthy"
>>I wish more people considered this.
Modern US Society is losing alot of things that used to be a foundation. Privacy is one of them.
In general people today agree with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" rhetoric, generally accepting that "only bad people" want or desire privacy, and the government is only their to "protect good people from bad people"
It is all a lie ofcourse but that is where we are as a society, and I am not seeing anything on the horizon to change this
Largely we (the US) are moving to a more Authoritarian, collectivist society, leaving behind our Individualist libertarian roots
Modern US Society is losing alot of things that used to be a foundation. Privacy is one of them.
In general people today agree with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" rhetoric, generally accepting that "only bad people" want or desire privacy, and the government is only their to "protect good people from bad people"
It is all a lie ofcourse but that is where we are as a society, and I am not seeing anything on the horizon to change this
Largely we (the US) are moving to a more Authoritarian, collectivist society, leaving behind our Individualist libertarian roots
"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" only works if it applies all around. Declassify all the things, then we can have this talk...
It is not valid to claim that people have a right to privacy if only those well enough off to afford it are able to take advantage of it.
If the above is true:
>If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are doing something else (and more common).
Isn't it easier (and more effective to the goal) to query the attorney of record, Articles of Organization filer, registered agent (etc from the Secretary of State), and have a more stringent eye on what they do, rather than taking personal identities to the Treasury?
The fault is not the individual, it's the supporting system that allows for thousands of anonymous LLCs to be coordinated - that only can happen through a support structure - that should be easy to identify through the current data.
Edit: also, yes, as another comment mentioned, thank you for chiming in. Very rarely do people get to speak to decision makers and advisors in these positions - this is real democracy at work.
>If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering. If you have a thousand shell entities, you are doing something else (and more common).
Isn't it easier (and more effective to the goal) to query the attorney of record, Articles of Organization filer, registered agent (etc from the Secretary of State), and have a more stringent eye on what they do, rather than taking personal identities to the Treasury?
The fault is not the individual, it's the supporting system that allows for thousands of anonymous LLCs to be coordinated - that only can happen through a support structure - that should be easy to identify through the current data.
Edit: also, yes, as another comment mentioned, thank you for chiming in. Very rarely do people get to speak to decision makers and advisors in these positions - this is real democracy at work.
> Isn't it easier (and more effective to the goal) to query the attorney of record, Articles of Organization filer, registered agent (etc from the Secretary of State), and have a more stringent eye on what they do
Formation documents and registered agents track legal ownership. An attorney may have a line to the beneficial owner. Or it may be to another attorney. Either way, that is protected by attorney-client privilege.
There is nobody logging beneficial ownership. The closest are banks, which started requiring beneficial ownership information only last year. Unbanked entities are dark.
Put another way, this bill is putting that “more stringent eye” on the system.
Formation documents and registered agents track legal ownership. An attorney may have a line to the beneficial owner. Or it may be to another attorney. Either way, that is protected by attorney-client privilege.
There is nobody logging beneficial ownership. The closest are banks, which started requiring beneficial ownership information only last year. Unbanked entities are dark.
Put another way, this bill is putting that “more stringent eye” on the system.
[deleted]
I'll add a second bit of context - a well respected member of Congress once told me, paraphrased "we do not regulate out in front. We are America. We are usually behind when it comes to regulations. We are free."
So, this legislation feels like a break from that consciousness.
Instead of playing cat and mouse with these entities - which the above quote illustrates as the American legislative way - we are going for the jugular of this issue.
So, this legislation feels like a break from that consciousness.
Instead of playing cat and mouse with these entities - which the above quote illustrates as the American legislative way - we are going for the jugular of this issue.
Anonymous shell companies have been a problem for decades, to the point that they are a standard trope in movies and TV. How is this ‘regulating out front’?
Because the methods these shell companies employ to coordinate give off a greater signal in the 21st century datasets — going the personal identifier route, you’re able to target people based on personal affiliations. The goal is admirable — however, this act as a solution is hasty (opportunistic) and disguised itself as “protecting against (insert threat).”
I’m not sure how this answers the question. How is it hasty when the problem is decades old?
Hasty (maybe I should say opportunistic) because it’s ideological reasoning to pass is capitalizing on the current zeitgeist (which I believe to be leaning more antithetical to the quote above). Again, the reason this bill is intriguing is because the problem can be solved through other methods - albeit more effortful. You don’t really need beneficial identifiers on these types of companies to get who’s doing bad things.
What ideological reasoning are you referring to?
So this bill is the beneficial ownership paper for the US? Am I the only one who think this requirement is as stupid as it gets. If you are a money launderer are you going to make an accurate disclosure? How does the US/Authorities check the validity of these disclosures?
As someone who went through the BO pain, I think it only added more paperwork load to small business/guys like me.
As someone who went through the BO pain, I think it only added more paperwork load to small business/guys like me.
These laws have precedence, and the precedence shows benefits [1][2]. It would have also mitigated historical harms [3].
Note that American compliance is de-centralised. A $5+ million entity attracts a different level of scrutiny from banks, corporate registers and brokers than a no-revenue entity with an overseas signatory.
[1] https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdes...
[2] https://open.cmi.no/cmi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2475354...
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/90012622
Note that American compliance is de-centralised. A $5+ million entity attracts a different level of scrutiny from banks, corporate registers and brokers than a no-revenue entity with an overseas signatory.
[1] https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdes...
[2] https://open.cmi.no/cmi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2475354...
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/90012622
My question might be stupid since you seem to be more versed in this subject. But if I incorporate in the US, how does the government/relevant bodies know that I am who I say I am in the BO?
I believe it is a criminal act under this law to lie about it (there are other laws that make it illeagal to lie on government forms), so you would be committing a paperwork process crime which USG loves to enforce. Signing the false form would literally be mailing evidence of a crime to FinCen.
But if you are already a criminal... Would that matter?
My guess is that many people don't consider themselves all out criminals, just 'regular' folks skirting the edges of legality. So doing something undeniably illegal and on the record may discourage taking an action.
Or even if consciously criminal then one would want to minimize risk of getting discovered.
Or even if consciously criminal then one would want to minimize risk of getting discovered.
My point was related to those already practicing money laundering. They already know it's illegal, what's one more criminal act? Once you are invested, it's not a problem.
Your lie has to pass scrutiny. Your lawyer also had to be willing to lie on paper. The companies who set up these fake corporations (with bogus boards) now have to supply a real person. If they don’t make an attempt to verify this information, then they become criminally liable too.
Ummm, you don't anyone to fill business fillings for you in the US. So no, you don't need anyone else to lie, no need to add conspiracy to the charges.
Also, finding an attorney that is willing to lie, is very easy. How do you think all this stuff is already happening illegally now? ;)
Also, finding an attorney that is willing to lie, is very easy. How do you think all this stuff is already happening illegally now? ;)
Right, so if government agents can’t string you up for your actual crime (which they probably suspect but cannot prove) then they can get you for lying on a government form.
It still seems to raise their risk profile as the shells are more likely to get discovered unless they meet these new thresholds.
Something I think you are missing is that at the moment if the government is investigating potential money laundering and the trail leads to a shell company then the trail ends there. With the new law, if the company is registered to someone that doesn't exist then a felony has been committed and they can probably seize all the assets of the company.
If the criminals risk forfeiting their money they may look to other avenues instead of using American shell companies.
I very much doubt anyone is under the illusion that this will stop criminals trying to launder money through American companies, it just makes it easier to seize assets of potential laundering operations and to investigate sources.
If the criminals risk forfeiting their money they may look to other avenues instead of using American shell companies.
I very much doubt anyone is under the illusion that this will stop criminals trying to launder money through American companies, it just makes it easier to seize assets of potential laundering operations and to investigate sources.
[deleted]
Al Capone committed a lot of crimes besides tax evasion, but he went to prison for the crime he could be convicted of.
The more offenses someone commits, the more likely they'll make a mistake committing one of them and get caught. Yeah most money launderers will have no moral qualms about lying on a form, but someone already on the fence might be dissuaded if the risk of getting convicted increases.
The more offenses someone commits, the more likely they'll make a mistake committing one of them and get caught. Yeah most money launderers will have no moral qualms about lying on a form, but someone already on the fence might be dissuaded if the risk of getting convicted increases.
True, lots of kingpins go down for off center charges.
"Never break two laws at once"
This had to be said by sometime who wasn't a career criminal. Lol!
The same way any company performs anti-fraud checks.
And how this is done - check the provided information against a known-good database (there are plenty of services that you can pay for here). Perform random spot checks. Make sure that the UBO is filing taxes for this entity’s earnings. Etc.
I’m not claiming it’s perfect; fraud detection is a hard problem, and it’s also pretty obscure if you haven’t had to deal with it at your own company.
And how this is done - check the provided information against a known-good database (there are plenty of services that you can pay for here). Perform random spot checks. Make sure that the UBO is filing taxes for this entity’s earnings. Etc.
I’m not claiming it’s perfect; fraud detection is a hard problem, and it’s also pretty obscure if you haven’t had to deal with it at your own company.
Exactly, just find another Patsy too put down as the beneficial owner and use them as a proxy. Cartels and people with money/power, don't ask you to do this for them, they tell you. This bill lacks teeth in so many ways. Requesting honesty from criminals is silly. Expecting the banking industry that has lobbied for this secrecy to play along, is also silly.
This is already happening and had been for years.
Source; I know people who laundered money for years in the Caribbean. One of the Patsy's is paying a lot of tax debt for the shell that was in his name.
This is already happening and had been for years.
Source; I know people who laundered money for years in the Caribbean. One of the Patsy's is paying a lot of tax debt for the shell that was in his name.
But making that 'patsy' the legal owner also increases the actual owner's risk profile. The Patsy has greater control and can redirect the money and is the legal 'owner' of the assets. That forces the non-legal owner to use someone they trust implicitly and someone closer to them generally, making them easier to tie back in a legal case.
This law isn't just for money launderers, it's for people hiding assets. For example, there are many criminals and despots that steal huge sums of money and then form shell companies in the US and buy real estate or other assets.
If the beneficial owner is falsified, then if that property comes under investigation, they stand to lose it. There are currently multiple $50m+ homes in places like BelAir or Beverly Hills that are owned by anonymous shell companies and they sit vacant year round. Some, after much investigation were found to be owned by foreign politicians. I suspect a large percentage of these properties are also from ill gotten gains.
If the beneficial owner is falsified, then if that property comes under investigation, they stand to lose it. There are currently multiple $50m+ homes in places like BelAir or Beverly Hills that are owned by anonymous shell companies and they sit vacant year round. Some, after much investigation were found to be owned by foreign politicians. I suspect a large percentage of these properties are also from ill gotten gains.
> they stand to lose it.
If the source of the funds was unlawful, they'd lose it anyways.
If the source of the funds was unlawful, they'd lose it anyways.
And as a guess, under the new law, if they have a fake owner, then the government can take the property because a documented crime has been committed, as opposed to hitting a brick wall when it encounters the shell company.
> If you are a money launderer are you going to make an accurate disclosure? How does the US/Authorities check the validity of these disclosures?
Someone has to file the paperwork. If you willingly misfile it, then you are an accomplice. The various offices that manage these papers also try to do minimal checks. Also if the filer is a professional agent/attorney they have strict requirements to keep various details about their clients. (Which are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if there's sufficient evidence then a judge can issue a warrant, so the investigation can try to follow the trail. So either the attorney was duped or it was complicit.)
Someone has to file the paperwork. If you willingly misfile it, then you are an accomplice. The various offices that manage these papers also try to do minimal checks. Also if the filer is a professional agent/attorney they have strict requirements to keep various details about their clients. (Which are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if there's sufficient evidence then a judge can issue a warrant, so the investigation can try to follow the trail. So either the attorney was duped or it was complicit.)
Government wants the information for tax purposes. If I sell a multi million dollar condo in Chicago, taxes have to be paid. If I sell an LLC that owns the same condo, no taxes are paid.
There are a lot of types of businesses that don't need physical presence, software development should be the most obvious.
How is this bill going to affect US entrepreneurs operating legitimate businesses incorporated in Delaware (or similar jurisdictions) who are just trying to protect their privacy?
That's my worry. I seem to be in the minority here, who thinks that if I am not being suspected of a crime, I should not have to provide any information to the government about a company that I own. To me, this is another example of freedom lost in the name of crime/terrorism/protect-the-children/whatever justifications.
It sounds like this information will be available to people at banks and law enforcement without a subpoena. Is this the case? If so, this represents an enormous threat to privacy. It should not be possible for people at a bank or law enforcement to do a db query without judicial consent, find out everything someone owns, and illegally leak that data to their friend / reporter / relative / lawyer / PI who asked. I don't care if that makes their work harder or more expensive; unless someone has reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in illegal activity, there are good reasons for that data to be private.
Why wouldn't beneficial ownership of a company be entirely public data?
TL;DR I agree with the intent of this law but I disagree with the exact implementation.
There are groups of people who have legitimate safety concerns (victims of domestic violence and stalking, members of law enforcement, victims of abuse from law enforcement, public figures potentially subject to political violence such as the people certifying voting in this recent election, high net worth individuals, corporate officers of companies some people have beef with, activists, LGBT in very religious areas, reporters, whistle blowers, etc) who are using these tools as part of a DIY witness protection program to safeguard themselves against violence and intimidation. This is undermined if people can trivially unmask the beneficiaries of companies used to obfuscate purchases of assets such as a house or car. I agree that this data should be available to law enforcement during an investigation (ie with a subpoena), but allowing bank employees or any member of law enforcement to trivially access it whenever they want opens up the door to abuses and leaks (selling access or granting access to friends, contacts, or others intent on doing the owners harm). It also assumes blanket trust in those with privileged access and there have been many instances in the past of this trust being abused. It should require more than knowing or being a cop or a bank employee with access to be able to DOX or come after someone who is not breaking the law but wants to remain private.
There are groups of people who have legitimate safety concerns (victims of domestic violence and stalking, members of law enforcement, victims of abuse from law enforcement, public figures potentially subject to political violence such as the people certifying voting in this recent election, high net worth individuals, corporate officers of companies some people have beef with, activists, LGBT in very religious areas, reporters, whistle blowers, etc) who are using these tools as part of a DIY witness protection program to safeguard themselves against violence and intimidation. This is undermined if people can trivially unmask the beneficiaries of companies used to obfuscate purchases of assets such as a house or car. I agree that this data should be available to law enforcement during an investigation (ie with a subpoena), but allowing bank employees or any member of law enforcement to trivially access it whenever they want opens up the door to abuses and leaks (selling access or granting access to friends, contacts, or others intent on doing the owners harm). It also assumes blanket trust in those with privileged access and there have been many instances in the past of this trust being abused. It should require more than knowing or being a cop or a bank employee with access to be able to DOX or come after someone who is not breaking the law but wants to remain private.
I may be off base here, but what if I'm a super-rich dude who starts a company that exists solely to send the SPCA, St.Judes and Shriner's Hospital a million a month because of those gut-wrenching commercials, but I want to remain completely anonymous about it?
Isn't that dealt with by running a non-profit? "Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt."
If you need a a commercial company to make money before handing it over, here in the UK it is common to set that up as a subsidiary of the non-profit. Charities do it all the time, a subsidiary company runs the charity shops, and gives the profit to the parent charity. This allows the shops to be run more like a commercial operation, with fewer constraints than a charity is required to follow, then when the money is handed up to the charity those constraints apply to how it is spent or distributed to other charities.
If you need a a commercial company to make money before handing it over, here in the UK it is common to set that up as a subsidiary of the non-profit. Charities do it all the time, a subsidiary company runs the charity shops, and gives the profit to the parent charity. This allows the shops to be run more like a commercial operation, with fewer constraints than a charity is required to follow, then when the money is handed up to the charity those constraints apply to how it is spent or distributed to other charities.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Most of the value gains of companies in the current economy occur before a company IPO's and shares are available to the general public. If regular people are to be able to invest successfully then they will need access to invest in those companies. The JOBS act tried to help facilitate this, but by making it easier for companies to wait to IPO, it seems to have just made it easier for accredited investors to reap the benefits of their special status for even longer periods of time. While this law may help with shutting down some corrupt entities, I fear it will prevent many new possible ways for normal people to invest in the last remaining sector of the economy producing any decent returns. Would an ETF of a large number of start-ups be allowed under this law?
Also, attaching a bunch of non related stuff to huge bills like defense appropriation is really an annoying to me, but I guess that is how the sausage gets made.
Also, attaching a bunch of non related stuff to huge bills like defense appropriation is really an annoying to me, but I guess that is how the sausage gets made.
> non related stuff to huge bills like defense appropriation
An inspiration for this bill was mitigating circumvention of the Magnitsky Act. Americans using shell companies may evade taxes. Foreign entities using shell companies may evade our counterintelligence.
An inspiration for this bill was mitigating circumvention of the Magnitsky Act. Americans using shell companies may evade taxes. Foreign entities using shell companies may evade our counterintelligence.
> Americans using shell companies may evade taxes. Foreign entities using shell companies may evade our counterintelligence.
Americans use incorporated entities to buy assets to limit their personal or corporate liability in operating businesses. This requires all of those to be queried for beneficial ownership - for what reason?
Anonymous Shell corporations is being used synonymously with legitimate holding companies because it markets the cause well - greater tracking on who owns what.
Americans use incorporated entities to buy assets to limit their personal or corporate liability in operating businesses. This requires all of those to be queried for beneficial ownership - for what reason?
Anonymous Shell corporations is being used synonymously with legitimate holding companies because it markets the cause well - greater tracking on who owns what.
> greater tracking on who owns what
This is transparently the intent of the bill.
This is transparently the intent of the bill.
[deleted]
God forbid the government charged with enforcing property law know who owns what!
Public Courts are so good we chose to use private arbitration!
You're ultimately still relying on the public men-with-guns to enforce anything binding, so suck it up and get back in the public courts.
That’s quite a large assumption on who would win those battles - and further how they really have to be enforced - pen mightier than the sword, or some such.
Btw - fun ‘spar.’ I respect your thinking, just disagree slightly
Btw - fun ‘spar.’ I respect your thinking, just disagree slightly
> Americans using shell companies may evade taxes.
This is a general problem with the tax code. Fix what Apple does, which needs to be done anyway, and you don't have this problem.
> Foreign entities using shell companies may evade our counterintelligence.
Isn't a foreign counterintelligence service just going to list a straw man as the beneficial owner?
This is a general problem with the tax code. Fix what Apple does, which needs to be done anyway, and you don't have this problem.
> Foreign entities using shell companies may evade our counterintelligence.
Isn't a foreign counterintelligence service just going to list a straw man as the beneficial owner?
This is great (and thanks!), but if congress really cared about this stuff, they would have big teams at the IRS working on tracing sophisticated money laundering. As it is, those teams are underfunded, headed by revolving doors of people, and threatened whenever they do something bigcos don't like.
Cool. Ive always wanted to ask this to someone in the us. I am from India and here the government department that manages companies has rules put in where all companies necessarily put all directorships as public info. Same for an interesting idea. You cannot have more than two layers of companies. A bunch of people cannot form a company and then buy/setup a subsidiary below it beyond 2 levels. Same for each human director lists all directorships in all companies.
What benefit does anonymity provide ? Its not like your phone/address has to be made public. Just a name/id. This transparent system is working here without any issues, why cant it work with you guys?
What benefit does anonymity provide ? Its not like your phone/address has to be made public. Just a name/id. This transparent system is working here without any issues, why cant it work with you guys?
Short answer: hiding questionable (not necessarily illegal) activities.
good. if you say that argument, whats the point of kyc/aml legislations? if corporates are allowed to operate in secrecy, do whatever, why expect kyc norms on the rest of the world?
Digression-- why is it 2021 and I'm reading a 1990s-style forum that has no automated way to authenticate the "JumpCrisscross" identity?
There might be something to having an option for an authenticated identity, to a reasonable degree of certainty. Maybe charge a fee for a special badge to cover the extra administrative hassle?
What kind of authentication of a user do you have in mind ?
Further, in what manner is 'jancsika' authenticated, to anyone, and why do you consider that negative ?
Further, in what manner is 'jancsika' authenticated, to anyone, and why do you consider that negative ?
Anonymity is for people who influence our laws, not for people subject to them.
I am not a US citizien but I'd still like to thank you for taking time out of your day to explain. I wish politics would generally be more transparent about their intentions but I guess it wouldn't be politics then. It's always hard to find out the intentions of thresholds and numbers as the models behind them are never communicated through the media.
Do you know, will the beneficial ownership disclosure information be available to the public, including available to litigious lawyers?
What is the estimated cost for the regulatory compliance? Considered that the burden will fall on small business, have you considered the impact on global competitiveness? Is that impact worth the benefits of this legislation?
If you are wrong and later discover unexpected side-effects, what is the mechanism and cost of fixing or removing this regulation?
If you are wrong and later discover unexpected side-effects, what is the mechanism and cost of fixing or removing this regulation?
This sounds a lot like the "people with significant control" rules in the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-...
I am a director of a small and mostly inactive company. We had to fill in a form when these rules came in. We have to fill in a form when we change directors or shareholders, which happens every few years. We have to fill in an annual confirmation that the information is up to date. All of this takes a matter of minutes. The cost is negligible.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-...
I am a director of a small and mostly inactive company. We had to fill in a form when these rules came in. We have to fill in a form when we change directors or shareholders, which happens every few years. We have to fill in an annual confirmation that the information is up to date. All of this takes a matter of minutes. The cost is negligible.
> The cost is negligible.
It is not. It adds stress. When this was added (where I operate), I had to call in an accountant to do the paperwork because the penalty is prison time, and not a fine. This additional stress and paperwork just keeps compounding (there is a new paperwork every one or two years now). Then you have the small fee for that particular paperwork (should have been free?) and the accountant fee. It just keeps adding up, and for a single or very small business it's becoming unsustainable.
It is not. It adds stress. When this was added (where I operate), I had to call in an accountant to do the paperwork because the penalty is prison time, and not a fine. This additional stress and paperwork just keeps compounding (there is a new paperwork every one or two years now). Then you have the small fee for that particular paperwork (should have been free?) and the accountant fee. It just keeps adding up, and for a single or very small business it's becoming unsustainable.
“the penalty is prison time“
Penalty for what? There is usually a pretty large distinction between misfiling as part of a crime, and misfiling as mere clerical error.
I don’t know where you operate.
Perhaps it’s so corrupt that officials will use any excuse to jail people who don’t pay them, but if this is the kind of locale in which you operate, a regulation like this would seem to be the least of your worries.
Penalty for what? There is usually a pretty large distinction between misfiling as part of a crime, and misfiling as mere clerical error.
I don’t know where you operate.
Perhaps it’s so corrupt that officials will use any excuse to jail people who don’t pay them, but if this is the kind of locale in which you operate, a regulation like this would seem to be the least of your worries.
You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains.
If doing something could allow the prosecutor to plausibly charge you with this, even if you wouldn't be convicted, you now have to be counseled in doing it to avoid that possibility, otherwise you could be coerced into pleading guilty to something you didn't do because the alternative is prohibitively expensive legal defense from a questionable charge with a low risk of a high penalty.
Businesses are risk averse with things like this, so now, because of the possible implications, they'll hire a lawyer/accountant to deal with it, increasing compliance costs on many innocent people.
If doing something could allow the prosecutor to plausibly charge you with this, even if you wouldn't be convicted, you now have to be counseled in doing it to avoid that possibility, otherwise you could be coerced into pleading guilty to something you didn't do because the alternative is prohibitively expensive legal defense from a questionable charge with a low risk of a high penalty.
Businesses are risk averse with things like this, so now, because of the possible implications, they'll hire a lawyer/accountant to deal with it, increasing compliance costs on many innocent people.
> You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains.
In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.
In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.
> In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.
Various UK sources seem to think you do, and cite specific government guidelines for the practice, e.g.:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/
Various UK sources seem to think you do, and cite specific government guidelines for the practice, e.g.:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/
Not really. I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you.
My point is that if this is all they have then they don’t have a case, so legitimate businesses don’t need to stress about about clerical errors landing them in jail.
My point is that if this is all they have then they don’t have a case, so legitimate businesses don’t need to stress about about clerical errors landing them in jail.
> I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you.
There is no if. Everybody is committing a crime all the time. There are laws that prohibit doing things that other laws mandate. There are more pages of laws on the books than anyone could read in a lifetime, so there is no feasible way to know that a given action isn't illegal.
Businesses are engaged in risk management. They try to avoid knowingly breaking the law. Making that process consume more resources, increases compliance costs.
There is no if. Everybody is committing a crime all the time. There are laws that prohibit doing things that other laws mandate. There are more pages of laws on the books than anyone could read in a lifetime, so there is no feasible way to know that a given action isn't illegal.
Businesses are engaged in risk management. They try to avoid knowingly breaking the law. Making that process consume more resources, increases compliance costs.
If what you say is true, this law makes no difference, so why bother critiquing it?
The law likely will make little difference for its intended effect, but will create compliance costs.
It will also needlessly lead to the disclosure of personal information from people doing nothing wrong, simply because using tax disregarded LLCs has become a widespread practice to patch around just about everything else constantly demanding your personal info and leaking it everywhere.
By demanding the submission of this information, having harsh penalties for avoiding it, and providing apparently zero protection or consequences for disclosing it... that outcome is essentially guaranteed.
It will also needlessly lead to the disclosure of personal information from people doing nothing wrong, simply because using tax disregarded LLCs has become a widespread practice to patch around just about everything else constantly demanding your personal info and leaking it everywhere.
By demanding the submission of this information, having harsh penalties for avoiding it, and providing apparently zero protection or consequences for disclosing it... that outcome is essentially guaranteed.
“become a widespread practice to patch around just about everything else constantly demanding your personal info and leaking it everywhere“
Is it? Can you give some examples of how this is used?
I have never seen any reporting on this practice. What makes you think it is widespread?
Is it? Can you give some examples of how this is used?
I have never seen any reporting on this practice. What makes you think it is widespread?
In my experience of doing this, the cost was negligible. If you freaked out and spent a lot of money on it, that's your business.
> the penalty is prison time, and not a fine
You aren't going to prison for an honest mistake. mens rea, innit.
As some solicitors say [1]:
> It is a criminal offence not to:
> * Take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a PSC and identify them to Companies House
> * Give notice to the registrar of companies of an entry alteration or note in a company’s PSC register within 14 days of any change being made
> The sanctions for such offences are a fine or possible imprisonment.
> In the event that you do not comply with your PSC requirements Companies House will contact your business and give you an opportunity to rectify the position, before proceeding to enforcement action.
https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulat...
> the penalty is prison time, and not a fine
You aren't going to prison for an honest mistake. mens rea, innit.
As some solicitors say [1]:
> It is a criminal offence not to:
> * Take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a PSC and identify them to Companies House
> * Give notice to the registrar of companies of an entry alteration or note in a company’s PSC register within 14 days of any change being made
> The sanctions for such offences are a fine or possible imprisonment.
> In the event that you do not comply with your PSC requirements Companies House will contact your business and give you an opportunity to rectify the position, before proceeding to enforcement action.
https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulat...
You seem like someone who isn't risk-averse. Personally, I like to know that what I'm doing doesn't put me at the mercy of an annoyed / overworked bureaucrat. I don't think it's only police officers who sometimes enforce where they shouldn't.
What additional burden do you think the bill puts on small businesses?
> The act also makes “deliberate false statements or willful evasion of its requirements” a federal crime, punishable by up to three years in jail.
That seems pretty similar to every government form that I've ever filled out.
The relevant words being ‘deliberate’ and ‘willful’, meaning the prosecution will have to prove your intent beyond reasonable doubt.
If there is no crime to point to beyond misfiling, there will be no case for willful intent.
If there is no crime to point to beyond misfiling, there will be no case for willful intent.
As someone else pointed out, those words seem ripe for exploitation by prosecutors looking for a plea-bargain.
As I have replied elsewhere, that’s only a problem if they have something else on you.
Legitimate businesses don’t have to stress about a clerical error landing them in jail.
Legitimate businesses don’t have to stress about a clerical error landing them in jail.
Better to have a well written law on the side of the civilian than a badly written one that can be enforced on the whim of a bureaucrat. At least, that's the way I see it.
That doesn’t seem to be related to this topic in any obvious way.
[deleted]
> The bill is not a general anti-money laundering bill. If you have employees and revenues, you are engaging in sophisticated money laundering.
So, sophisticated money laundering is explicitly legally allowed?
So, sophisticated money laundering is explicitly legally allowed?
Not really, you just need different tools to deal with it. Why expect a single law to fix everything?
> This bill tries to exempt economically active entities.
A company with 5 emplyees is not active?
A company with 5 emplyees is not active?
A company with 5 employees is very unlikely to have a complicated ownership structure and so wouldn't be hamstrung by the act.
You are penalized if you are small, complicated, and anonymous. You aren't penalized _just_ for being small, or complicated, or anonymous.
You are penalized if you are small, complicated, and anonymous. You aren't penalized _just_ for being small, or complicated, or anonymous.
[deleted]
Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you for explaining!
Well written, thanks for making your case here.
[deleted]
Found Sam Seaborn
DeafSquid(2)
I think what you’re saying is the wealthy have made it too complicated to tax them effectively or even find out what they are doing with their assets.
> the wealthy have made it too complicated to tax them effectively or even find out what they are doing with their assets
Complexity comes into play on the cost calculation. Wealthy people with complicated structures doing little revenue with few or no employees may find this law onerous. Most people, including the wealthy, will be done listing themselves, their spouse and a few outside investors.
Complexity comes into play on the cost calculation. Wealthy people with complicated structures doing little revenue with few or no employees may find this law onerous. Most people, including the wealthy, will be done listing themselves, their spouse and a few outside investors.
I think you're mistaken. This is about anti-money-laundering, not tax.
They're one and the same. The purpose of money laundering is to pay the taxes on illegally acquired money so you can spend it legitimately. If the IRS wasn't going to come after you for tax fraud, I don't see the point in laundering. Just deposit that crap in the bank.
No, you are wrong.
The purpose of money laundering is to prevent government from getting too curious about where that money is coming from.
The purpose of money laundering is to prevent government from getting too curious about where that money is coming from.
That’s what the parent is saying. In a nutshell by taxing money it becomes legitimate. The trick lies in not drawing any scrutiny on the business itself, I believe it is basically attempting to make the said business appear as ordinary as possible.
BVI has already passed the legislation to set up a beneficial ownership database. The battle for this ended about four years ago (there will be hold outs like Mauritius, and Nauru but they are now very small in number...beneficial ownership disclosure is now accepted).
And btw, this will make no difference for most foreigners doing evil things (the ever-present "Russian"). Russia doesn't participate in information-sharing, money laundering today is largely a problem of govts choosing not to participate in information-sharing (and I think the implication is that this is anti-corruption, this globalist approach to corruption does nothing, it will help no-one).
And btw, this will make no difference for most foreigners doing evil things (the ever-present "Russian"). Russia doesn't participate in information-sharing, money laundering today is largely a problem of govts choosing not to participate in information-sharing (and I think the implication is that this is anti-corruption, this globalist approach to corruption does nothing, it will help no-one).
This law appears to be a boon to anyone trying to find out where specific wealthy people live in order to kidnap them and/or their families for ransom.
It doesn't matter if the information isn't supposed to be made public, if you hand it over it's easily social engineered out, and if you hand it over it gets sold to data brokers. The only way to be secure is to not actually share the data, and this law-- a rider which bypassed democratic review by being tacked onto a budget bill-- makes doing so a crime.
:(
I think that no law should be passed that requires the collection of personal information without including penalties for abuse of the information at least as severe as the penalties for not providing the information.
It doesn't matter if the information isn't supposed to be made public, if you hand it over it's easily social engineered out, and if you hand it over it gets sold to data brokers. The only way to be secure is to not actually share the data, and this law-- a rider which bypassed democratic review by being tacked onto a budget bill-- makes doing so a crime.
:(
I think that no law should be passed that requires the collection of personal information without including penalties for abuse of the information at least as severe as the penalties for not providing the information.
People shouldn't be doing business in the shadows. If you are engaged in economic activity you should be a knowable entity. It isn't hard to find where wealthy people live anyway.
The "economic activity" being discussed in my sub thread here is simply owning your own home and not having your address easily available for kidnappers and nut bags. It is, in fact, pretty hard (as in the cost can be easily raised to a couple grand with a bit of opsec).
Renters have no such disclosure of where they live.
This law could have at least made unauthorized disclosure of the information collected a felony as is the case for tax returns, but it does not.
Renters have no such disclosure of where they live.
This law could have at least made unauthorized disclosure of the information collected a felony as is the case for tax returns, but it does not.
Thanks for outlining the thoughts that went into this. To me this once again exemplifies why a blockchain for assets is the way to go. And by that I don't mean an ethereum or bitcoin (or insert popular coin here) type of blockchain. I mean a public ledger run by regulators that keeps track of all assets. If enough regulators adopt such a model and allow tax collectors to access its data then that lookup for the ultimate beneficial owners becomes much more feasible.
How do I downvote on here?
I think the threshold is still 500 karma for that.
When you get (iirc) 501 “karma “ a downvote button appears next to the upvote one.
You need at least 501 karma to use that feature.
> This seems like the government stumping on small money launderers while giving the big guys a tax...
It is a little different. Using your numbers, previously $5 million got a big player ~1,000 shell companies, now it gets them 1. The law would make a legal manoeuvrer several orders of magnitude more costly. That is more powerful than a $5 million per business tax.
It is a little different. Using your numbers, previously $5 million got a big player ~1,000 shell companies, now it gets them 1. The law would make a legal manoeuvrer several orders of magnitude more costly. That is more powerful than a $5 million per business tax.
The way I see it, before, he had two choices: Run a single money laundering operation where he recruit people, have an office, etc... and have a sizable amount going through it. Or create 1.000 shell company. Having a single shell company with no presence and employees move dozens of millions of dollars will raise eyebrows from the bank. But a 1.000 shell that move dozens don't.
After this, he has only one choice: Run the fake business.
After this, he has only one choice: Run the fake business.
its simply the cost of enforcement. The tax will help make sure the public is getting a cut, you cant just have a shell company on the backs of the american system without paying some locals. The tax will help fund enforcement efforts for better security, some of these "big" companies will be corrupt and there will be more money to help catch these bad actors. Also there probably has been some data done on how these shell companies run and with this one law you take out 90% of corruption.
There might be some good actors that get caught in this too and have to go out of business. If there is such thing as a good shell company???
You cant catch every drug dealer so you either focus on the big offenders and make them pay or you make drugs legal. I think its better for society if we do the former. Drugs are unhealthy.
There might be some good actors that get caught in this too and have to go out of business. If there is such thing as a good shell company???
You cant catch every drug dealer so you either focus on the big offenders and make them pay or you make drugs legal. I think its better for society if we do the former. Drugs are unhealthy.
Wouldn’t that force every small business to hire legal experts to prove they aren’t shell companies?
No, it will force small businesses in a handful of states to provide their beneficial owners, as they already do in most states and when opening bank accounts nationwide.
Probably a dumb question, but are the disclosures only available to the government (federal?), or will the disclosures be available to the general public (and litigious lawyers) too?
Government only.
I can find nothing in the bill that guarantees this, nor provides for any penalty for unauthorized disclosure. Am I missing something you can direct me to?
I can state that in practice, in attempting to social engineer my own legally protected information from banks and local government I have had nearly 100% success rate in obtaining it. The only solution is to not give them access to the data in the first place.
If this information is available 'only to law enforcement' as some have suggested here, that often means that essentially any law enforcement anywhere in the country for any reason. If you don't know someone who can look up tags for you, or addresses off drivers licenses ... you need to get out more. That level of protection is better than nothing, but it isn't particularly protected.
I can state that in practice, in attempting to social engineer my own legally protected information from banks and local government I have had nearly 100% success rate in obtaining it. The only solution is to not give them access to the data in the first place.
If this information is available 'only to law enforcement' as some have suggested here, that often means that essentially any law enforcement anywhere in the country for any reason. If you don't know someone who can look up tags for you, or addresses off drivers licenses ... you need to get out more. That level of protection is better than nothing, but it isn't particularly protected.
Yes, it keeps randoms out. Be careful asking friends in law enforcement to look something up for you. Requests are logged. And if another law enforcement group has an alert set, you will get a visit asking why you were asking.
Small businesses are usually LLC. This will most likely target C-Corps than anything else. But yes, this will make life hard for anyone running a remote C-Corp and does not have enough revenue to be "legitimate". This also will inflate costs for small businesses running legitimate operations: Rent will go up, Harder to recruit people and Less profit or no profit. I lived near a place like this. It was impossible to run a profitable coffee-shop or restaurant because there was lots of competition, little customers and sky-high rent costs. It seemed like 90% of the activity right there was simply fake or driven by the money laundering economy.
None of what you said seems to follow from what is explained in the comments above or the article. From my reading, literally all the small business has to do to be “legitimate” is to accurately disclose the beneficial owners’ names, addresses and a Government issued ID (which I assume can be foreign for foreign owners as long as it can be verified).
There’s nothing about not being allowed to have an anonymous shell company that inflates the costs of legitimate business...
There’s nothing about not being allowed to have an anonymous shell company that inflates the costs of legitimate business...
> literally all the small business has to do to be
These are the most dangerous words ever. Especially that this requirement is probably ineffective. It is a small paperwork, yes, but it is there. A couple years later, it is reviewed and judged to be ineffective and new requirements are added to this paperwork.
Then we end up with hundreds of paperwork to fill and submit just to be able to run a business.
These are the most dangerous words ever. Especially that this requirement is probably ineffective. It is a small paperwork, yes, but it is there. A couple years later, it is reviewed and judged to be ineffective and new requirements are added to this paperwork.
Then we end up with hundreds of paperwork to fill and submit just to be able to run a business.
> This also will inflate costs for small businesses running legitimate operations
It's inherently obvious you didn't read the article at all. None of what you state is true. Just do yourself a favor and read the article.
It's inherently obvious you didn't read the article at all. None of what you state is true. Just do yourself a favor and read the article.
That's my worry, too. For my 3 person consulting business we already have to spend about 8 hours a week on "compliance".
This sounds like the same reason we have a death tax. Those that can’t afford to setup the right paperwork are essentially screwed and have to pay their fair share. Meanwhile those with teams of lawyers have the ability to skirt paying their fair share. Great.
In general, if you can't afford a lawyer to set up paperwork, you won't have enough to trigger the tax, though. The outrage about the inheritance tax is generally misplaced.
And to be fair, that last bit is simply the US tax system: If you can lawyers and accountants, you might not pay much tax. Unfortunately, change requires congressional action and folks working together.
And to be fair, that last bit is simply the US tax system: If you can lawyers and accountants, you might not pay much tax. Unfortunately, change requires congressional action and folks working together.
> In general, if you can't afford a lawyer to set up paperwork, you won't have enough to trigger the tax, though. The outrage about the inheritance tax is generally misplaced.
The outrage is that it's a trap for the unwary. Billionaires don't pay it but family businesses who didn't realize they had assets in excess of the threshold do, or people who die young before doing the preparation.
If you can avoid it just by hiring an accountant then it shouldn't exist.
The outrage is that it's a trap for the unwary. Billionaires don't pay it but family businesses who didn't realize they had assets in excess of the threshold do, or people who die young before doing the preparation.
If you can avoid it just by hiring an accountant then it shouldn't exist.
Inheritance taxes don't kick in until $11.5 million.
Where did you get that number?
As the executor of my father's estate, I can attest to paying taxes based on a much lower threshold.
Gp is talking about at the federal level, where that is indeed the number. You probably had to pay state taxes, those have much lower limits in some states.
My state taxes inherited out of state real property at an absurd rate (I wanna say 20%, might be 15, in any case, that's a big chunk of change).
In practice it's just a big f you to anyone who's parents live out of state and die owning their home and didn't have the foresight to put it in trust or sign it over to the kid(s) prior to dying.
There is no justifiable purpose for this tax other than revenue. Property out of state has zero cost to the people of the state. It's a pure money grab and it's only affecting the middle class (because anyone who can justify the cost of estate planning will not be subject to this tax).
Edit: I'd be curious to see why people find this comment so disagreeable? Or is it just ideologically inconvenient to point this stuff out?
In practice it's just a big f you to anyone who's parents live out of state and die owning their home and didn't have the foresight to put it in trust or sign it over to the kid(s) prior to dying.
There is no justifiable purpose for this tax other than revenue. Property out of state has zero cost to the people of the state. It's a pure money grab and it's only affecting the middle class (because anyone who can justify the cost of estate planning will not be subject to this tax).
Edit: I'd be curious to see why people find this comment so disagreeable? Or is it just ideologically inconvenient to point this stuff out?
> There is no justifiable purpose for this tax other than revenue.
Isn’t this the alleged purpose for all taxes?
Isn’t this the alleged purpose for all taxes?
Isn't the lower limit on an estate that is subect to estate taxes pretty high? (State rules may differ, but if you're talking about "the death tax", you're probably speaking nationally)
Dying is actually subsidized for people with less than that who have unrealized capital gains, unless I understand the system wrong.
Dying is actually subsidized for people with less than that who have unrealized capital gains, unless I understand the system wrong.
Exactly! This kind of legislature is pointless. Either fix everything at once, or don't. There's zero point in making small incremental changes that do not benefit everyone, and still allow a proportion of thugs to get away with it. It is obviously a political stunt by a government desperate to score some 'wins' on its way out.
> Either fix everything at once, or don't. There's zero point in making small incremental changes that do not benefit everyone
?! That’s an interesting perspective, especially on a software development forum :)
?! That’s an interesting perspective, especially on a software development forum :)
Most (new) laws have loopholes. The solution is to close the loopholes, not abandon laws.
> Either fix everything at once, or don't. There's zero point in making small incremental changes that do not benefit everyone
Have you ever had any look at how laws actually get passed in the US and pretty much any country with some sort of democratically legitimized government?
Your demand in any of these systems would simply lead to no laws getting passed at all, most of the time, total legislative gridlock. Legislature is an incremental process by nature, and especially so in systems of government where the interests of more than one side are represented, so compromises have to be made at every step of the way.
Have you ever had any look at how laws actually get passed in the US and pretty much any country with some sort of democratically legitimized government?
Your demand in any of these systems would simply lead to no laws getting passed at all, most of the time, total legislative gridlock. Legislature is an incremental process by nature, and especially so in systems of government where the interests of more than one side are represented, so compromises have to be made at every step of the way.
For what it's worth, this was supposed to be an "agreement onto absurdity" satirical response, to point out the flaw of following parent's reasoning to its natural conclusion.
Though, given people didn't pick up on the sarcasm, at the very least I'm glad it's at least being downvoted instead of upvoted!
Though, given people didn't pick up on the sarcasm, at the very least I'm glad it's at least being downvoted instead of upvoted!
Huh, never would have guessed, I suppose sarcasm really doesn't translate well in text form. There are just too many actual crazy viewpoints around to be sure which ones are actually just satirical/sarcastic.
Transparency International helped to craft the bill: https://us.transparency.org/news/historic-anti-corruption-me...
From their statement:
"In these divided times, it is encouraging that a broad and politically diverse coalition came together to make these critical reforms a reality. We’d like to especially thank Chairman Crapo (R-ID), Ranking Member Brown (D-OH), Chairwoman Waters (D-CA), Ranking Member McHenry (R-NC), Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY), Congressman King (R-NY), Congressman Luetkemeyer (R-MO), and Congressman Cleaver (D-MO), as well as Senators Warner (D-VA), Cotton (R-AR), Jones (D-AL), Rounds (R-SD), Whitehouse (D-RI), Grassley (R-IA), Wyden (D-OR), and Rubio (R-FL) for their support."
From their statement:
"In these divided times, it is encouraging that a broad and politically diverse coalition came together to make these critical reforms a reality. We’d like to especially thank Chairman Crapo (R-ID), Ranking Member Brown (D-OH), Chairwoman Waters (D-CA), Ranking Member McHenry (R-NC), Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY), Congressman King (R-NY), Congressman Luetkemeyer (R-MO), and Congressman Cleaver (D-MO), as well as Senators Warner (D-VA), Cotton (R-AR), Jones (D-AL), Rounds (R-SD), Whitehouse (D-RI), Grassley (R-IA), Wyden (D-OR), and Rubio (R-FL) for their support."
> Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act. Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt.
Those seem like extremely non-negligible exemptions. Which is not to say that this law is useless, but it could use more teeth.
Those seem like extremely non-negligible exemptions. Which is not to say that this law is useless, but it could use more teeth.
It is a really good start however. No doubt under a different US administration, it stands a chance to be improved upon.
it is me...or smaller companies should have the ones exempt?
No, usually the shell companies have zero or minimal number of employees.
sure, but unless money moves through them, what's the harm?
The could have done it so any one person can only have "shell" companies up to the point when x million is moved through them in any one given period.
The could have done it so any one person can only have "shell" companies up to the point when x million is moved through them in any one given period.
They do move money but, because it's so easy and relatively cheap to open them, they can split the flows into tens of hundreds of them. So you have fractions of a million moving at once, not a big lump sum.
tens of hundreds of them....but if the total is more than $x a year you must declare.
Anyway, the decided this way and so it is.
Anyway, the decided this way and so it is.
There is nothing to declare because the beneficiary wasn't needed. Now it is.
Why should any company be exempt?
See above excellent answer by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25612615:
> Tracing the beneficial owners of economically-active entities (i.e. not shell companies [2]) is expensive. Imagine doing this for Apple. You would need to look through every ETF that holds it to its mutual fund owners to their pension fund owners to their holding companies to their pensioners.
> Tracing the beneficial owners of economically-active entities (i.e. not shell companies [2]) is expensive. Imagine doing this for Apple. You would need to look through every ETF that holds it to its mutual fund owners to their pension fund owners to their holding companies to their pensioners.
The UK version of this rule doesn't exempt large companies, it exempts small shareholders. You don't have to declare anyone who owns less than 25% of the company.
That makes a lot more sense. That way, to have a shell company, you need 5 owners, which is a bigger nightmare than hiring 20 employees.
[deleted]
Privacy, there’s no need for this information to be public.
You could already sue the anonymous shell company if you wanted to.
You could already sue the anonymous shell company if you wanted to.
I disagree. Tit for tat. quid pro quo. If you want the privileges provided (limited liability) and recognized by the government, then I have no problem if privacy is given up in exchange.
None of the information is public anyway.
> The information about the true owners would not be publicly available, however. FinCEN could release information only after receiving a proper request from a local, state, tribal or federal law enforcement agency, or a request by a foreign country. That means ownership information would not be publicly available to identify who is actually behind an investment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/business/dealbook/llc-she...
> The information about the true owners would not be publicly available, however. FinCEN could release information only after receiving a proper request from a local, state, tribal or federal law enforcement agency, or a request by a foreign country. That means ownership information would not be publicly available to identify who is actually behind an investment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/business/dealbook/llc-she...
Files from FinCEN were leaked in September to Buzzfeed and icij.org
I'm just saying I don't think privacy was a motivation for the exemptions. Would policymakers have considered the possibility of FinCEN leaks? That'd be pretty unusual, since usually they assume it's fine for government agencies to collect as much information as possible.
We all have the resources to sue anonymous Delaware LLCs
The cab company?
To give some meat to my post, some landlords of low income housing abuse Delaware's unusual business regulations to obscure their identities and operate illegal roach motels in other states; these same people make excuses about how they're at risk of being harassed by the same tenants they underserve and evict, and therefore feel justified in hiding their identities.
Edit for clarity: the tenants can't sue, being low income. My original post about suing anonymous shell companies was facetious.
Edit for clarity: the tenants can't sue, being low income. My original post about suing anonymous shell companies was facetious.
If a business entity going to conduct business in public, why does that entity deserve any expectation of privacy?
Here in Norway the register of who operates a company is public information in Brønnøysundregistrene [1]
It's convenient but it also generates a huge amount of telephone spam and fake invoices fraud attempts. So I could see the argument of keeping that information private.
I still think that it's better to have it public, but it generates some additional problems that needs to be handled.
1: https://www.brreg.no/
It's convenient but it also generates a huge amount of telephone spam and fake invoices fraud attempts. So I could see the argument of keeping that information private.
I still think that it's better to have it public, but it generates some additional problems that needs to be handled.
1: https://www.brreg.no/
We have the same thing in the UK, Companies House. Anyone who is a director has their address in public. It doesn't generate much spam though as we don't do phone numbers or email addresses, and companies who spam people who aren't opted in to spam can be fined.
For quite some years now the rule for Companies House is that a director may provide an office address and that's what is shown in the public records. Companies House will still ask for their home address, but it isn't public.
There are actually three levels: A public address available to anybody who knows how to enquire, an address available to a large number of authorised users, including Credit Reference Agencies, numerous government agencies and so on, and finally a home address intended primarily for law enforcement (e.g. if the director is to be arrested it wouldn't do for police to have no idea where they live). You can set them all to be the same, but you don't have to.
The reason for the last extra grade is that in the UK there are businesses which are legal but broadly unpopular. For example, somebody is breeding animals that will be used for medical research. Historically protesters have harassed the directors of firms like that, vandalized their homes and cars, physically attacked them, or threatened their lives. Such directors are entitled to request that their home addresses be suppressed from most uses for this reason.
There are actually three levels: A public address available to anybody who knows how to enquire, an address available to a large number of authorised users, including Credit Reference Agencies, numerous government agencies and so on, and finally a home address intended primarily for law enforcement (e.g. if the director is to be arrested it wouldn't do for police to have no idea where they live). You can set them all to be the same, but you don't have to.
The reason for the last extra grade is that in the UK there are businesses which are legal but broadly unpopular. For example, somebody is breeding animals that will be used for medical research. Historically protesters have harassed the directors of firms like that, vandalized their homes and cars, physically attacked them, or threatened their lives. Such directors are entitled to request that their home addresses be suppressed from most uses for this reason.
The problem is that lists the director, not the owner. So you just have a secretary in a law firm listed as the director of 200 shell companies
By law Companies House requires that "Persons with Significant Control" be listed. PSCs are small numbers of specifically humans (not corporations) who, somehow, in effect control the company. The PSC entries are supposed to list all such humans (assuming any individual humans have "significant" control which they wouldn't at e.g. a publicly traded company) and only those humans.
The law is in practice fairly toothless, Companies House has typically insisted that it simply doesn't have the funding to pursue errors even though it's illegal to make false filings - despite a large volume of obviously bogus information in their system every year.
It did find the money exactly once in recent years, to prosecute one person. That one person was making a point of how toothless it is, by creating bogus data that was embarrassing to named politicians. What an excellent way to make their point for them.
The law is in practice fairly toothless, Companies House has typically insisted that it simply doesn't have the funding to pursue errors even though it's illegal to make false filings - despite a large volume of obviously bogus information in their system every year.
It did find the money exactly once in recent years, to prosecute one person. That one person was making a point of how toothless it is, by creating bogus data that was embarrassing to named politicians. What an excellent way to make their point for them.
No, Companies House also requires you to declare "persons with significant control" in the ltd company, which includes the owners. (for example, this is my company https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...)
It is not useless. Countries love money laundering when the money is coming from overseas and the crime happened not in their jurisdictions. It's free money that circulates in the economy, pays some taxes and help their exchange rate. The only reason some of these money laundering hot spots (like Hong Kong or the Emirates) started clamping down on these operations is that the USA and Europe pressured them to. Switzerland removed its secrecy because of FATCA, not because they wanted to.
This law passed because 1. The regulator do not care about small guys; 2. They don't think small guys are moving that much money and are more trouble than profit; and 3. It looks like they are doing something. It also helps employ some people and maintain big cities real-estate by fake restaurants or shops. Ever wondered how some of these joints are able to pay rent and employees with so little customers?
This law passed because 1. The regulator do not care about small guys; 2. They don't think small guys are moving that much money and are more trouble than profit; and 3. It looks like they are doing something. It also helps employ some people and maintain big cities real-estate by fake restaurants or shops. Ever wondered how some of these joints are able to pay rent and employees with so little customers?
"Ever wondered how some of these joints are able to pay rent and employees with so little customers?"
I have always wondered about this. In Manhattan, for example, you fairly frequently hear about restaurants that seem to be popular and busy all the time closing because they couldn't keep up with rent increases. And yet it's also somehow full of corner stores, gift shops, laundromats, pizza places, Chinese restaurants, lunch buffets, etc. etc. that no one ever seems to go into and have 2 stars on Yelp, but are still there year after year.
I figured that in some cases it could be a family that owns the building or a sweetheart lease deal or whatever, but there are just so many that it doesn't seem to add up.
I have always wondered about this. In Manhattan, for example, you fairly frequently hear about restaurants that seem to be popular and busy all the time closing because they couldn't keep up with rent increases. And yet it's also somehow full of corner stores, gift shops, laundromats, pizza places, Chinese restaurants, lunch buffets, etc. etc. that no one ever seems to go into and have 2 stars on Yelp, but are still there year after year.
I figured that in some cases it could be a family that owns the building or a sweetheart lease deal or whatever, but there are just so many that it doesn't seem to add up.
In many cases they own the location and think it is a reasonable way to defer property costs, which maintaining ownership. But you're right, there are also shady operators that are making money in illegal ways.
"small guys" ? Like the Roman Catholic Church, which likely has been moving it's money and holdings, just as it moves its guilty priests around, to hide them all so the pedophile lawsuits cannot get to it?
Exempting churches was a terrible, terrible mistake.
Exempting churches was a terrible, terrible mistake.
Exempting churches was a terrible, terrible mistake.
especially from a country with clear "separation of church and state" rules, except "in god we trust" on the money.
No surprise they granted the churches the exemption, and stronly agree they should NOT have gotten the exemption given their own well documented corruption.
especially from a country with clear "separation of church and state" rules, except "in god we trust" on the money.
No surprise they granted the churches the exemption, and stronly agree they should NOT have gotten the exemption given their own well documented corruption.
There's a pretty simple reason why churches and other non-profits are exempt.
They don't have any owners, so they can't disclose who their owners are.
They don't have any owners, so they can't disclose who their owners are.
It probably wouldn’t get bipartisan support without the exception though. It’s not perfect legislation and none is, but at least it’s a start.
Of course, evangelicals are the biggest beneficiaries of church fraud. They open a new "church" every day, for the purpose of hiding their money producing assets: seminar companies, show business, book publishing, TV and radio.
Completely agree, especially because in this country is so each to open a new "church". One thing is to have legitimate churches, like the catholic or the protestant (whatever you think of them), another is to allow the creation of new "churches" so easily. It is a recipe for money laundering and a platform for con men (most of them are known as TV preachers).
> the law also exempts some entities from the disclosure requirements, including domestic investment funds that are advised and operated by a registered investment adviser. Gascoigne said that exemption was the result of lobbying by the private-equity and hedge-fund sectors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou...
Note that RIAs have to file paperwork with the SEC and are subject to its regulation. I would still prefer they be subject to the law. But it’s night and day from a Nevada LLC, which doesn’t even require ID to form, buying up hundreds of millions of dollars of property.
Ok but if they're not required to submit ownership information for shell companies, it seems the only practical impact is that RIAs get gatekeeper revenue.
In other words, the law is toothless, you just need to open an illegitimate business that is operated through an investment company.
What are the unintended side-effects? I understand this is probably a well-meaning legislation, but:
FATCA made it impossible for an American to have a bank-account abroad [1]
PFICs made it impossible for an American to invest in non-US funds [2]
Together with world-wide taxation, punitive departure tax when renouncing the citizenship and huge estate tax when finally passing away, seems to me that Americans are becoming prisoners of their own government.
1. https://www.democratsabroad.org/what_is_fatca_what_are_its_i...
2. https://thunfinancial.com/home/american-expat-financial-advi...
FATCA made it impossible for an American to have a bank-account abroad [1]
PFICs made it impossible for an American to invest in non-US funds [2]
Together with world-wide taxation, punitive departure tax when renouncing the citizenship and huge estate tax when finally passing away, seems to me that Americans are becoming prisoners of their own government.
1. https://www.democratsabroad.org/what_is_fatca_what_are_its_i...
2. https://thunfinancial.com/home/american-expat-financial-advi...
Well, Americans had a hard time laundering or hiding money abroad, but foreigners were welcome to do so in the USA. That has become harder now.
Please note that I am not talking about anything illegal, just law abiding citizens who cannot do things that they could do before.
I wonder, is the cost worth it? Was there so much laundering and hiding going on that it was worth losing even more freedoms over it?
I wonder, is the cost worth it? Was there so much laundering and hiding going on that it was worth losing even more freedoms over it?
FATCA does not make it impossible to have a bank account abroad. I currently live in a country known for its historical banking secrecy and two different large banks I walked into were able to open an account for me with only one extra form that gives them consent to share my information with the IRS. There was at least one employee in both branches that knew exactly what to do, although not every employee did so I can understand some Americans trying to open accounts being turned away.
As an American that lives abroad, I naturally don't support the extra taxation based on citizenship when I'm already taxed in my country of residence. There is paperwork to file to avoid double taxation, but hiring a lawyer to do it will probably cost me more than it saves at this stage in my life.
As an American that lives abroad, I naturally don't support the extra taxation based on citizenship when I'm already taxed in my country of residence. There is paperwork to file to avoid double taxation, but hiring a lawyer to do it will probably cost me more than it saves at this stage in my life.
I think because of what the US did some years ago with Switzerland, some banks just try to reduce the legal risk by not having us customers. In the US is it not illegal to have a porn business, just no banc will give you an account. Here in Switzerland even hospitals started to refuse US customers because of legal risks. I guess that's the price for be the bully and push everybody in the world.
https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/die-angst-der-spitaeler-vor-der...
https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/die-angst-der-spitaeler-vor-der...
I was thinking the same thing. Certainly an American passport is becoming one of the worst in the world to own.
Not the worst though, there's Eritrea.
They also tax their citizens worldwide [1]
[1] https://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/Citizenship-...
They also tax their citizens worldwide [1]
[1] https://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/Citizenship-...
While I understand that this law was created with good intent and I am pleased that money laundering and corruption have been made more difficult, it angers me that one of the few tools available to afford the average person real privacy has been stripped away. There are many people who have legitimate need to hide where they live (by buying assets under a shell): victims of stalking or domestic violence; members of minority groups such as LBGT in very religious areas; reporters; public figures who are being targeted by political enemies; whistle blowers; famous people; corporate executives; high net worth individuals; anyone who angers law enforcement with legal activity; etc. In the age of public record aggregation, it is trivially easy for anyone to locate the average person, let alone someone with the privilege level of law enforcement who can do so with effectively no oversight. I don't think this is a good thing.
I don't view these tools as being much different from VPNs. There are people that have legitimate uses for VPNs to hide ownership of traffic; there are people that have legitimate uses for shell companies to hide ownership of stuff. There are people that abuse VPNs; there are people that abuse shells. The vast majority of legitimate VPN users would be trivially unmasked by having a subpoena dropped on the provider. The vast majority of legitimate shell company users would be trivially unmasked by having a subpoena dropped on the registered agent. VPN users only become "anonymous" with great opsec and layering. Shell company users only become anonymous with great opsec and layering. The purpose of VPNs is to hide from every day people and to force law enforcement to put in work. The purpose of shell companies is to hide from everyday people and to force law enforcement to put in work. The fact that this community of all communities doesn't see these parallels is honestly fairly surprising to me.
I don't view these tools as being much different from VPNs. There are people that have legitimate uses for VPNs to hide ownership of traffic; there are people that have legitimate uses for shell companies to hide ownership of stuff. There are people that abuse VPNs; there are people that abuse shells. The vast majority of legitimate VPN users would be trivially unmasked by having a subpoena dropped on the provider. The vast majority of legitimate shell company users would be trivially unmasked by having a subpoena dropped on the registered agent. VPN users only become "anonymous" with great opsec and layering. Shell company users only become anonymous with great opsec and layering. The purpose of VPNs is to hide from every day people and to force law enforcement to put in work. The purpose of shell companies is to hide from everyday people and to force law enforcement to put in work. The fact that this community of all communities doesn't see these parallels is honestly fairly surprising to me.
Be honest: Do you really have any evidence of victims of domestic violence or LGBT people worried about discrimination using using, specifically, anonymous economically inactive shell companies to deal with those issues?
I know a mildly famous family that got some attention from stalkers in the past and now owns their house under a shell company.
Unless the stalkers had access to law enforcement resources that doesn’t seem relevant.
They are using, specifically, an economically inactive shell company to protect themselves from people who wish them harm.
As far as I know there is nothing special in the corporate structure that would make it difficult for law enforcement to find, the point is to stay out of public records.
As far as I know there is nothing special in the corporate structure that would make it difficult for law enforcement to find, the point is to stay out of public records.
So it's not relevant - this law doesn't make the shell company information public.
Stalkers can _BE_ law enforcement. Just google "cop stalking ex".
Yeah I already said exactly this in another thread. But again, unless anonymous shell companies are the way people are avoiding that, it's not relevant for this discussion, and much more effectively addressed in other ways.
I have anecdata about victims of domestic violence using these tools. There are even entire guides for how to do so (eg Michael Bazzell's Extreme Privacy). It's hard to tell how many people are doing this when the entire purpose of doing it is to obfuscate who you are.
This beneficial owner information isn't intended to be public record; it's only for law enforcement.
As if there aren't legitimate, legal reasons to hide things from the government. Have they earned any kind of trust? Have they not been breached by hackers hundreds of times? Has law enforcement in the USA specifically proven themselves trustworthy?
I can't find anything in the law which restricts disclosure of the information in any way, much less makes disclosing it a crime (as it is for tax returns, for example). Is there some thing I'm missing?
I guess the answer is in here somewhere but I'm not qualified to interpret it:
https://www.fincen.gov/foia-and-privacy-act-guidance https://www.fincen.gov/foia-exemptions-and-exclusions
https://www.fincen.gov/foia-and-privacy-act-guidance https://www.fincen.gov/foia-exemptions-and-exclusions
Cops are substantially over-represented among domestic abusers so if this is an effective tool for victims then this would still be a concern.
Whether or not it's effective should be pretty easy to check since this is already legal in some states but not others. Or it should be much easier for abuse victims in the US compared to e.g. Nordic countries where corporate ownership information is fully public. Since I find no evidence of such a difference it would seem this is just the usual case of rich people using actually disadvantaged people as a cover for their bullshit.
(Though I feel like there's maybe a more direct solution to this aspect, maybe something with a nice slogan you can chant at marches...)
Whether or not it's effective should be pretty easy to check since this is already legal in some states but not others. Or it should be much easier for abuse victims in the US compared to e.g. Nordic countries where corporate ownership information is fully public. Since I find no evidence of such a difference it would seem this is just the usual case of rich people using actually disadvantaged people as a cover for their bullshit.
(Though I feel like there's maybe a more direct solution to this aspect, maybe something with a nice slogan you can chant at marches...)
Yeah, innocent people hiding from the police isn't the right solution.
> Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act. Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt.
Just to confirm - am I reading this correctly in that, this massive corporate secrecy legislation does not apply to the vast majority of publicly traded corporations in the US? If they had just not included those exemptions, this would have been extremely beneficial for everyone right?
Why would we want to allow anonymous corporate shell organizations which are deemed to hide funds if they are tied well known US corporations, as opposed to some shady criminals? Isn’t the crime the same either way?
Just to confirm - am I reading this correctly in that, this massive corporate secrecy legislation does not apply to the vast majority of publicly traded corporations in the US? If they had just not included those exemptions, this would have been extremely beneficial for everyone right?
Why would we want to allow anonymous corporate shell organizations which are deemed to hide funds if they are tied well known US corporations, as opposed to some shady criminals? Isn’t the crime the same either way?
If the exemption criteria are AND more than 20 people, AND 5 million, AND a physical presence, it makes some sense, as shell companies typically have few or no employees, and little actual presence other than an accountant or law firm.
I think those are the criteria
Considering that the vast majority of lockdowns and other COVID-response actions have been against small businesses (shut down the corner store but let Walmart stay open), it isn't particularly surprising. Politicians and corporate leaders gain nothing by supporting small business owners.
I can't speak for revenue, but physical presence and real employees are indicators of an actual corporation, rather than a shell.
If I understand correctly then this forces the shell companies to report their "secret" benefactors. So it keeps the small players from hiding behind a shell because the cost of running a fake company with 20 full time employees would be prohibitive to them. The bigger ones can probably run a few of the exempt shells in parallel without loosing too much of their overall profit.
Also, companies with a physical presence in the USA are much easier to audit or prosecute.
> Just to confirm - am I reading this correctly in that, this massive corporate secrecy legislation does not apply to the vast majority of publicly traded corporations in the US? If they had just not included those exemptions, this would have been extremely beneficial for everyone right?
why would anyone go against 'all publicly traded corporations'? do you believe they are inherently evil, and should be taxed?
this law limits the depth of shell-company layers. it's more costly to add shells with this law.
why would anyone go against 'all publicly traded corporations'? do you believe they are inherently evil, and should be taxed?
this law limits the depth of shell-company layers. it's more costly to add shells with this law.
What would you expect a large publicly traded corporation to write down as their beneficial owner? Maybe it’s a bit tricky for firms with dual class stock like Facebook, but for most firms the beneficial owners are their shareholders (so basically a big stake for blackrock and vanguard, maybe a few other big stakes, and a lot of small stakes).
Typically there's a special provision on forms for this, as with non-profits (which have no owners).
Sure but I’m replying to a comment which suggests that the regulation shouldn’t exclude large publicly traded companies
Am I the only person bothered that they snuck it in as a rider on another bill?
We need more succinct, germane legislation. It's no surprise that the Read The Bills act never passed. These multi-hundred/thousand page laws are bullshit, and usually filled with pork that has nothing to do with the title of the bill.
Congress shouldn't vote on bills they haven't read, period. If a bill wants to pass, it should stand on its own merits, not sneak in with one that can't fail.
We need more succinct, germane legislation. It's no surprise that the Read The Bills act never passed. These multi-hundred/thousand page laws are bullshit, and usually filled with pork that has nothing to do with the title of the bill.
Congress shouldn't vote on bills they haven't read, period. If a bill wants to pass, it should stand on its own merits, not sneak in with one that can't fail.
I wonder how this affects the beneficial owners of trusts in South Dakota (who, amongst other pretty crazy shit, can stay anonymous under South Dakotan law: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/the-great-amer... )?
I am curious if this will actually have an affect on real estate then in urban areas such as NYC, SF, Miami etc? So much of the "luxury condo" stock in these places is owned by anonymous shell companies[1]. In fact it seems that much of the luxury condo building boom of the last 20 years is almost predicated on the existence of the anonymity of such shell companies.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/how-s...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/how-s...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou... has more information on this topic (and in my opinion is a better article)
The biggest observation I have of the US is that corruption is rampant at all levels, often performed through simplistic manipulation of the legal system by moneyed parties. Consumers and small businesses get screwed by companies to big to sue. Senators magically make 10s of millions while in office despite “blind” trusts. Regulators live in a revolving door with their industries. Hell even doctors get paid for over prescribing medication.
Anti corruption measures like these are exactly what the US needs.
Anti corruption measures like these are exactly what the US needs.
I would trade these in a second for anti-corruption measures that actually did something about the problems you're complaining about.
The problem is that the legislation above does nothing against the kind of corruption you mentioned, because it is well supported in US legislation. For example, lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption.
The legislation above does eliminate one common form of legal corruption which blocked enforcement and other legal actions by obfuscating who you need to bring action against.
In many cases, hiding the identity of the actors behind a shell corp was sufficient to hide the crime. e.g. a foreign government could donate to a super pac by way of a shell corp. In order to prosecute such behavior one would need.
1. The list of all donations 2. The ownership information of all donations
I can't exactly send out a mass lawsuit against all donors asking them to prove that they are in fact American.
In many cases, hiding the identity of the actors behind a shell corp was sufficient to hide the crime. e.g. a foreign government could donate to a super pac by way of a shell corp. In order to prosecute such behavior one would need.
1. The list of all donations 2. The ownership information of all donations
I can't exactly send out a mass lawsuit against all donors asking them to prove that they are in fact American.
>The act also makes “deliberate false statements or willful evasion of its requirements” a federal crime, punishable by up to three years in jail.
Considering almost everyone this bill targets is a non-US citizen, this punishment doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. I'm skeptical that we'll see a string of executive extradition cases over this.
It probably does make large scale civil forfeiture easier though.
Considering almost everyone this bill targets is a non-US citizen, this punishment doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. I'm skeptical that we'll see a string of executive extradition cases over this.
It probably does make large scale civil forfeiture easier though.
It's my understanding that it's not uncommon for a, for example, doctor in the US to own an anonymous shell company based in the Cayman Islands or somewhere similar for tax purposes. Presumably the US-citizen doctor would be on the hook for the federal crime regardless of his shell company's location, and there's no need for extradition.
>Presumably the US-citizen doctor would be on the hook for the federal crime regardless of his shell company's location, and there's no need for extradition.
This law requires providing some accurate information when forming a company in the US. A shell company in any other country would never violate this law.
This law requires providing some accurate information when forming a company in the US. A shell company in any other country would never violate this law.
The people who want to set up anonymous shell corporations may not be US citizens, but the people who are actually filing the paperwork here in the US most likely are.
It isn't clear that the people filing paperwork are at any risk from this bill.
How will this affect patent trolling? I feel it's a small, good step even though the issue is much larger. I mean, there has been shell companies filing for patent infringement in the past, hasn't it?
Intellectual Ventures for example makes extensive use of shell companies.1 However, the database proposed to created under this bill will be "nonpublic at FinCEN".
1 http://www.plainsite.org/tags/index.html?id=640
1 http://www.plainsite.org/tags/index.html?id=640
Transparency International strikes me as one of those branding strategies where actually the opposite of the name is the case (cf. OpenAI).
All these issues are too complicated for >99% of the population to actually understand well enough to say if it's "good" or "bad" _in the final analysis_.
Read the Wikipedia on the organization and tell me if these seem like transparent people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_International
All these issues are too complicated for >99% of the population to actually understand well enough to say if it's "good" or "bad" _in the final analysis_.
Read the Wikipedia on the organization and tell me if these seem like transparent people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_International
In technology we are coming to accept that no matter how solid your security is, there are just too many attackers and someone will get in. We need to tackle our tax code and similar systems the same way. We need to design the systems to be robust to this kind of trickery from the start, not chase and plug loopholes after the fact. Particularly when the incentives are so off - the private industry accountants and lawyers getting around the rules are paid more, have more fun, and enjoy more prestige than those on defense.
My team and I created a C-corp using Stripe Atlas with the aim of being able to use the Stripe payments platform. In our country, processing mobile payments is expensive and the service fails every now and then. So far we haven't been able to open a bank account, though. All the "new" information mentioned in this article we have already provided when registering the C-corp with Atlas, so I'm not sure if we need to do something else. Has anyone experienced something similar?
Does anyone know if this would affect blind trusts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust
what will stop people from shifting to holding the llcs with anonymous trusts?
Magnitsky sanctions, or something that forms part of the road to a much broader application of them.
The US (and indeed UK and EU) has the power to squash tax havens. The big countries are not hostage to the little ones, things are the way they are because of who it benefits.
The US (and indeed UK and EU) has the power to squash tax havens. The big countries are not hostage to the little ones, things are the way they are because of who it benefits.
Does anyone have resources on what can be done now that this has passed? While I understand the intent of this bill it was a good privacy measure for spinning up new business units. I know there is a 20 person exception but if you are under that, it sounds like you'll need to do a ton of leg work then spin up the company.
Unless this is retroactive, won't it just secure the special place existing rich have with their anonymous shells?
It requires that going forward all such companies must register their beneficial owners. Not a matter of retroactive application, most companies have yearly filing requirements anyway.
I’m curious what actual form/filing, if any, this will manifest as. The reason I say this is that for several years now, whenever you’ve applied for an EIN on the IRS website, they’ve basically asked for the beneficial owner(s) information anyway.
[deleted]
Looks like this is going to require existing companies to submit information about the beneficial owner as well. That's going to be interesting.
Under this new law, how would I go about purchasing a house anonymously? I should have no obligation to tell the government where I live.
For anyone interested in learning more about the need for this, I strongly recommend Moneyland. It really does a good job leaning in on tension between (1) privacy, (2) liberty, and (3) Rule-of-Law.
All three of those are good things, but they also all step on each others toes.
Here's a taste: Back in the 1960s, Swiss banks held money for Nazi war criminals, but they also held money for tax dodgers and for refugees. These groups of people all sought secrecy/privacy/confidentiality (delete as applicable), meaning the evil money washed around with the naughty money, which washed around with the scared money. All three groups of people benefited from those first eurobonds, because they provided an income on money that had previously been static, but not all three were advertised equally prominently.
Swiss banks loved to claim that their bank secrecy had been designed to protect Jewish wealth from Nazi confiscation, and kept quiet about all the dictators whose money they also hoarded, or the tax dodging they facilitated. In effect, the refugees were being used to run interference for the others, and to make the Swiss banks look high-minded, rather than like the criminogenic institutions that they were.
Swiss banks insisted that the reason they didn't want to reveal the details on their clients was because that would endanger the legitimate interests of people seeking protection from rapacious governments.
All three of those are good things, but they also all step on each others toes.
Here's a taste: Back in the 1960s, Swiss banks held money for Nazi war criminals, but they also held money for tax dodgers and for refugees. These groups of people all sought secrecy/privacy/confidentiality (delete as applicable), meaning the evil money washed around with the naughty money, which washed around with the scared money. All three groups of people benefited from those first eurobonds, because they provided an income on money that had previously been static, but not all three were advertised equally prominently.
Swiss banks loved to claim that their bank secrecy had been designed to protect Jewish wealth from Nazi confiscation, and kept quiet about all the dictators whose money they also hoarded, or the tax dodging they facilitated. In effect, the refugees were being used to run interference for the others, and to make the Swiss banks look high-minded, rather than like the criminogenic institutions that they were.
Swiss banks insisted that the reason they didn't want to reveal the details on their clients was because that would endanger the legitimate interests of people seeking protection from rapacious governments.
>"Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act."
Ho long before few smarties pool together and form rich enough criminal enterprise that can act on behalf and serve smaller fish for some extra fee. This law is most likely just for show.
Ho long before few smarties pool together and form rich enough criminal enterprise that can act on behalf and serve smaller fish for some extra fee. This law is most likely just for show.
So instead of each bearing a small risk of getting caught against their small operation, now they are all exposed to the risks of each one of them and any of those risks coming true wipes them all out. Sounds good to me.
> So instead of each bearing a small risk of getting caught against their small operation, now they are all exposed to the risks of each one of them and any of those risks coming true wipes them all out. Sounds good to me.
That isn't the advantage you think it is. It's like getting all your criminals together to coordinate into a mutually assured destruction pact. Now you can't prosecute even low-level crime because the potential for it to affect the big fish makes it economical for the organization to respond to that with bribery, corruption, murder, infiltration of law enforcement agencies etc.
It's supposed to be divide and conquer, not solidarity and mutual self-interest for all the crime.
That isn't the advantage you think it is. It's like getting all your criminals together to coordinate into a mutually assured destruction pact. Now you can't prosecute even low-level crime because the potential for it to affect the big fish makes it economical for the organization to respond to that with bribery, corruption, murder, infiltration of law enforcement agencies etc.
It's supposed to be divide and conquer, not solidarity and mutual self-interest for all the crime.
That's probably true for organised crime generally yes, they can support each other, but we're not just talking about them being allied, but about them all throwing in together in one legally incorporated company. That's next level risky.
I remember when there were lots of small mom and pop criminal gangs. Now we just have the big corporate crooks, and they’re ruining everything.
This is a shameful violation of contract rights.
Effectively is a word with multiple meanings. I have my doubts that this will be effective.
Oh thanks guys for your help. I just need to hire 21 people and I’m ok. Phew.
Why, what aspect of the criteria affect you otherwise?
Is this why Trump vetoed it?
Not even on the radar for why he vetoed it, but you knew that and just wanted to make a dig for echo chamber points.
Just like Independent did when they wrote “Donald Trump had originally vetoed the $740bn defence bill containing the anti-corruption measures”... but asking for integrity when there is a chance to dig at Trump is just apparently asking too much.
Don’t you find it all so tiring? Don’t you want to be better than what you accuse “the other side” of?
Just like Independent did when they wrote “Donald Trump had originally vetoed the $740bn defence bill containing the anti-corruption measures”... but asking for integrity when there is a chance to dig at Trump is just apparently asking too much.
Don’t you find it all so tiring? Don’t you want to be better than what you accuse “the other side” of?
I mean, Trump has personally benefited from anonymous shell companies (Essential Consultants LLC; it was unmasked because Cohen is Not a Very Good Lawyer; there's also one associated with his re-election campaign), so it doesn't seem _that_ outlandish a question... His stated reasons for vetoing weren't particularly credible.
Can you provide any source at all that Trump was even aware of this provision? Any comments he made on disliking it? I’d accept anything at all that even gave the slightest credence to your assertion.
Because otherwise... it’s just projecting a fault where there is no evidence of one as revenge for some hurt feelings you have, after all, any think bad directed at a bad man is a good thing right?
So what if you are making it up, it’s “always ok to punch a Nazi”, right?
Because otherwise... it’s just projecting a fault where there is no evidence of one as revenge for some hurt feelings you have, after all, any think bad directed at a bad man is a good thing right?
So what if you are making it up, it’s “always ok to punch a Nazi”, right?
To be clear, no-one knows why Trump vetoed in the first place (his first two excuses were clearly not particularly credible; one could believe them if one liked, of course, but it’s not unreasonable to be sceptical of them). So one is left with speculation. This seems plausible, though obviously no-one can say for sure.
It’s perfectly reasonable to speculate on reasons when someone does something weird, and risky (ultimately, he was overridden) for no obvious reason.
It’s perfectly reasonable to speculate on reasons when someone does something weird, and risky (ultimately, he was overridden) for no obvious reason.
What about hiding money in real estate? You don't need a bank account to hide money. This law does little more than clarify money laundering rules and regulations already in place.
Don't you already need to provide your name and date of birth to personally buy real estate?
And why would you buy it personally? Even the most amateur of amateur landlords are generally aware it is well worth looking into creating an LLC and buying any investment real estate with that, lest a litigious tenant take away your entire life savings by a lawsuit about something frivolous or something you had no control over.
>And why would you buy it personally?
Because they refer to buying real estate as a way to avoid this law, so forming a limited liability company wouldn't work.
Because they refer to buying real estate as a way to avoid this law, so forming a limited liability company wouldn't work.
Actually the trick to corporate ownership of real estate goes like this:
Suppose jurisdiction X has a tax on real estate transfers and there's a lovely castle there, Castle Y which Person A owns.
Person A transfers the ownership of Castle Y to a holding corporation HoldCorp. There might be a tax for this, but there might well be some exemption, especially if Person A is willing to wait a while before...
Person A wants to sell Person B the castle. Instead they sell HoldCorp. The castle never changed ownership, and no tax is paid.
Later person C wants to buy the castle. They now buy HoldCorp from person B. The castle still didn't change owners and no tax is paid.
If jurisdiction X tweaks their law you might need to tweak your procedure slightly. Maybe Person A must stay as non-beneficial owner for 5 years after the sale, or maybe you must use a two lawyer shell corporation in Bermuda to properly insulate HoldCorp from the taxes. A lawyer will sort this out for far less than the taxes, all of which goes in their pocket and isn't used on government services for ghastly poor people.
Suppose jurisdiction X has a tax on real estate transfers and there's a lovely castle there, Castle Y which Person A owns.
Person A transfers the ownership of Castle Y to a holding corporation HoldCorp. There might be a tax for this, but there might well be some exemption, especially if Person A is willing to wait a while before...
Person A wants to sell Person B the castle. Instead they sell HoldCorp. The castle never changed ownership, and no tax is paid.
Later person C wants to buy the castle. They now buy HoldCorp from person B. The castle still didn't change owners and no tax is paid.
If jurisdiction X tweaks their law you might need to tweak your procedure slightly. Maybe Person A must stay as non-beneficial owner for 5 years after the sale, or maybe you must use a two lawyer shell corporation in Bermuda to properly insulate HoldCorp from the taxes. A lawyer will sort this out for far less than the taxes, all of which goes in their pocket and isn't used on government services for ghastly poor people.
[deleted]
It deals with company registration, so if anyone had the ability to hide real estate deals via a shell company they would be just as impacted.
It's not a bad law - but will probably catch high income professionals and small business owners who're trying to hide assets from tax authorities, shield them from legal liability or in the event of divorce etc. Sophisticated crooks will probably setup as business trading cos who will swap businesses and/or high value real estate and recognize those as revenue - and can probably use the transaction to claim depreciation and/or section 1031 tax benefits
Well the whole point is to prevent people from hiding assets from tax authorities.
It is, but like all of these legislations, it pretends to be about catching money launderers.
The problem I have with this law, is that judges will eventually start handing this information over to creditors and sue-happy lawyers and it will have a much wider and worse impact than the current intention of containing money laundering.
> that judges will eventually start handing this information over to creditors and sue-happy lawyers
Nothing about this act specifies that a judicial order is required for the publication of the information. AFAICT, fincen can just give or sell it to whomever they want, and there is no consequence for unauthorized disclosure.
I agree completely about the inevitable consequences.
People have been way too hyped up by TV shows. In the US there is a lot more activity conducted via companies with obscure ownership for entirely lawful asset protection, personal security, and just basic privacy then there is in money laundering.
Nothing about this act specifies that a judicial order is required for the publication of the information. AFAICT, fincen can just give or sell it to whomever they want, and there is no consequence for unauthorized disclosure.
I agree completely about the inevitable consequences.
People have been way too hyped up by TV shows. In the US there is a lot more activity conducted via companies with obscure ownership for entirely lawful asset protection, personal security, and just basic privacy then there is in money laundering.
This legislation is a step in the right direction and it's nice to see Congress being bi-partisan for once but it still doesn't fix the major problem. The shell companies in the Caymans, Panama, Malta, Switzerland, etc. If Congress passed a law requiring that any offshore entity that transacts or interacts with a US entity must also report their true ownership to the Treasury that would be some landmark legislation.
So it seems that the cost of money laundering has gone from a few thousands dollars for a Delaware C-Corp to running a fake business that employs 20 people and has an office. The minimum to launder under this scheme is $5m per year.
This seems like the government stumping on small money launderers while giving the big guys a tax: employ some people, and rent some real-estate.