Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/10/2013 10:28:53 PM

Michelle Obama Heads Home to Chicago to Address Youth Violence

ABC OTUS News - Michelle Obama Heads Home to Chicago to Address Youth Violence (ABC News)

ap michelle obama mi 130409 wblog Michelle Obama Heads Home to Chicago to Address Youth ViolenceMichelle Obama

In what may be her most comprehensive remarks on gun violence to date, the first lady is expected to deliver a deeply personal speech today about what can be done to halt the youth violence epidemic in her home town.

Visiting Chicago, Obama will speak to local business and community leaders as a mother and a Chicagoan about how to create opportunities for youth to achieve their full potential.

Obama will speak at a luncheon hosted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, where she will urge Chicago's business leaders to invest in expanded opportunities for youth across Chicago.

READ MORE: Michelle Obama Sees 'Movement' in Improving Childhood Obesity

The speech comes two months after the first lady attended the funeral for slain Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton.

"She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is, and she was caught in the line of fire. I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first," Obama later told ABC News' Robin Roberts.

Following her remarks at the "Joint Luncheon Meeting: Working Together to Address Youth Violence in Chicago," the first lady will meet with a small group of students and counselors at Harper High School to hear firsthand about their experiences.

The first lady's speech comes during a critical week, as the Senate is expected to debate the president's gun-control agenda.

READ MORE: Obama's Moving Moment with Sister of Newtown Victim

Does this signal a new policy push by the first lady?

"The negotiations with Congress, the legislative effort that's under way, the attempt to convince senators directly that they should not filibuster these bills is being led by and undertaken by the president and his team," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/10/2013 10:30:45 PM

The Case Against Gun Background Checks

ABC OTUS News - The Case Against Gun Background Checks (ABC News)

gty guns nt 130321 wblog The Case Against Gun Background ChecksThe Case Against Gun Background Checks

With the fate of gun control as muddled as ever, the best hope for congressional compromise centers on the most popular policy move Washington could make: universal background checks.

The public supports other measures, but among all the limits on gun ownership that Democrats have advanced since the December shooting in Newtown, Conn., background checks enjoy the most support.

A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed 91 percent of respondents in favor of "requiring background checks for all gun buyers," compared with slimmer margins, 59 percent and 58 percent, for banning "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, respectively.

READ MORE: Clock Ticking on Gun Control Debate

To many, the idea of preventing criminals from buying guns seems like a no-brainer, regardless of whether they're stopped at gun stores, as current background checks have successfully done, or atgun shows or from private sellers, where background checks aren't required. Still, Congress is hung up.

Some Republicans have balked at universal background checks. The National Rifle Associationopposes them. Why?

Here are a few arguments that have been offered up against the most popular move Congress could make on gun control. Underpinning most of the arguments is a similar idea, usually from conservatives: that universal background checks aren't worth an expansion of government power.

Few prosecutions of denied gun buyers. Created under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and implemented in 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System allows licensed gun sellers to check with the FBI, as required by law, before making a sale. While background checks have prevented tens of thousands of unlawful gun sales each year, opponents have said that the government doesn't prosecute enough attempted buyers who are turned away. "The law right now is a failure the way it's working," National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has said. According to Justice Department statistics supplied by the office of Sen. John Cornyn, out of more than 76,000 denials in 2010, 62 were referred for prosecution, and 13 resulted in guilty pleas or verdicts. Cornyn and LaPierre argued this point at a February hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on guns.

There are already enough gun laws. At the same hearing in February, NRA's LaPierre argued that more robust prosecution of criminals for gun crimes would be more effective than instituting universal background checks. "The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books," LaPierre said.

They're an invasion of privacy. As opponents of gun control warn about privacy issues, background checks are tangled up with another proposal, that records of gun sales must be kept. In a March 22 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, six GOP senators, led by Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, warned that they would oppose any measures that involved "government surveillance." While it's not entirely clear what policy those senators had in mind, the American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about both records and background checks. "You just worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected," Chris Calabrese, an ACLU privacy lobbyist, told The Daily Caller last week. Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has made it clear that a "national gun registry" is illegal and won't be part of any Democratic gun bill.

They might be too broad. Another concern raised by the ACLU's Calabrese was that, if a "transfer" of guns is defined too broadly, people with good intentions could unwittingly become criminals. "You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law. … They don't intend to transfer a gun or they don't think that's what they're doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer," Calabrese told The Daily Caller. The Heritage Foundation has said it is wary of any bill that would ban loaning guns to friends at gun ranges or on hunting trips.

Criminals don't submit to background checks. This argument sounds a bit tautological, but the NRA argues that most criminals don't get their guns from stores, but on a black market. "My problem with background checks is, you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," the NRA's LaPierre said at the February hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Gun shows … are not a source of crime guns, anyway. It's 1.7 percent." The Washington Post's fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, notes that this figure comes from Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who cites a 2004 survey of incarcerated gun-violence convicts about where they got their guns, in his new book "Reducing Gun Violence in America." The Brady Center has argued that surveys of prisoners underestimate how many criminals get their guns from private sellers and gun shows, and the center has chronicled cases in which criminals bought guns from private sellers and used them to kill people.

The stories of criminals who bought guns that would be prevented by universal background checks are, in many cases, heartbreaking. In 2009, the Brady Center released a report entitled "No Check, No Gun," disputing many of the cases made against universal background checks and chronicling instances in which they would have saved lives.

By 2009, the group argued, background checks had blocked more than 1.6 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/10/2013 10:34:28 PM

Senators unveil deal on gun sales background check

Senators announce deal on background checks for gun sales; Dems likely to thwart GOP delays

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/10/2013 10:35:55 PM

Obama sends Congress $3.8 trillion spending plan

Obama's budget: Congress gets $3.8 trillion spending plan seeking an elusive 'grand bargain'

Associated Press -

President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about his proposed fiscal 2014 federal budget, Wednesday, April 10, 2013, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.8 trillion spending blueprint on Wednesday that strives to achieve a "grand bargain" to tame runaway deficits, raising taxes on the wealthy and trimming popular benefit programs including Social Security and Medicare.

The president's budget projects deficit reductions of $1.8 trillion over the next decade, achieved with higher taxes, reductions in payments to Medicare providers and cutbacks in the cost-of-living adjustments paid to millions of recipients in Social Security and other government programs.

The budget would also nearly double the federal tax on cigarettes to $1.95 per pack. That money would fund a new pre-school program for 4-year-olds.

The president's proposed spending for the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would rise 2.5 percent from this year.

The budget projects a deficit for the current year of $973 billion, falling to $744 billion in 2014. Those would be the first deficits below $1 trillion since 2008. Even with the president's deficit reductions, the budget projects the red ink would total $5.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

The plan includes a compromise proposal that Obama offered to House Speaker John Boehner during "fiscal cliff" negotiations last December. Boehner walked away from those talks because of his objections to raising taxes on the wealthy.

By including proposals to trim Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, Obama is hoping to entice Republicans to consider tax increases.

"I have already met Republicans more than halfway, so in the coming days and weeks I hope that Republicans will come forward and demonstrate that they're really as serious about the deficit and debt as they claim to be," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

But instead of moving Congress nearer a grand bargain, Obama's proposals so far have managed to anger both the Republicans, who are upset by higher taxes, and Democrats unhappy about cuts toSocial Security benefits.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., rejected the administration's argument that the refusal of Republicans to consider further tax increases represents inflexibility.

"We Republicans have already done things to move to the middle, to find common ground," Ryan said on MSNBC. "We really believe if we set the stage right, we can get fundamental tax reform."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed Obama's budget as "not a serious plan. For the most part, just another left-wing wish list."

The president's spending and tax plan is two months late. The administration blames the delay on the lengthy negotiations at the end of December and then fights over the resulting March 1 automatic spending cuts.

The Obama budget proposal will join competing outlines already approved by the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run Senate.

Obama's plan is not all about budget cuts. It also includes an additional $50 billion in spending to fund infrastructure investments, including $40 billion in a "Fix It First" effort to provide immediate money to repair highways, bridges, transit systems and airports nationwide.

Obama's budget would also provide $1 billion to launch a network of 15 manufacturing innovation institutes across the country, and it earmarks funding to support high-speed rail projects.

The president's plan to establish a program to offer preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families would be financed by the higher tax on tobacco, which the administration said would raise $78 billion over a decade.

The administration said its proposals to increase spending would not increase the deficit but rather would be paid for either by increasing taxes or making deeper cuts to other programs.

Among the proposed cuts, the administration wants to trim defense spending by an additional $100 billion and domestic programs by an extra $100 billion over the next decade.

The budget proposes cutting $400 billion from Medicare and other health care programs over a decade. The cuts would come in a variety of ways, including negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy seniors to pay more.

It would obtain an additional $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm subsidies and trimming federal retiree programs.

The most sweeping proposal in Obama's budget is a switch in the way the government calculates the annual cost-of-living adjustments for the millions of recipients of Social Security and other benefits. The new method would take into account changes that occur when people substitute goods rising in price with less expensive products. It results in a slightly lower annual reading for inflation.

The switch in the inflation formula would cut spending on government benefit programs by $130 billion over 10 years, although the administration said it planned to protect the most vulnerable, including the very elderly. The change would also raise about $100 billion in higher taxes because the current CPI formula is used to adjust tax brackets each year. A lower inflation measure would mean more money taxed at higher rates.

In the tax area, Obama would raise an additional $580 billion by restricting deductions for the top 2 percent of family incomes. The budget would also implement the "Buffett Rule" requiring that households with incomes of more than $1 million pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. Charitable giving would be excluded.

Congress and the administration have already secured $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years through budget reductions and with the end-of-year tax increase on the rich. Obama's plan would bring that total to $4.3 trillion over 10 years.

It is unlikely that Congress will get down to serious budget negotiations until this summer, when the government once again will be confronted with the need to raise the government's borrowing limit or face the prospect of a first-ever default on U.S. debt.

As part of the administration's effort to win over Republicans, Obama will have a private dinner at the White House with about a dozen GOP senators Wednesday night. The budget is expected to be a primary topic, along with proposed legislation dealing with gun control and immigration.

Early indications are that the budget negotiations will be intense. Republicans have been adamant in their rejection of higher taxes, arguing that the $660 billion increase on top earners that was part of the late December agreement to prevent the government from going over the "fiscal cliff" is all the new revenue they will tolerate.

The administration maintains that Obama's proposal is balanced with the proper mix of spending cuts and tax increases.

Obama has presided over four straight years of annual deficits totaling more than $1 trillion, reflecting in part the lost revenue during a deep recession and the government's efforts to get the economy going again and stabilize the financial system.

The Obama budget's $1.8 trillion in new deficit cuts would take the place of the automatic $1.2 trillion in reductions required by a 2011 budget deal. That provision triggered $85 billion in automatic cuts for the current budget year, and those reductions, known as a "sequester," would not be affected by Obama's new budget.

The budget plan already passed by the GOP-controlled House would cut deficits by a total $4.6 trillion over 10 years on top of the $1.2 trillion called for in the 2011 deal. The budget outline approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate tracks more closely to the Obama proposal, although it does not include changes to the cost-of-living formula for Social Security.

Online:

http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/2013/us-budget-2013/

___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Jim Kuhnhenn, Donna Cassata and Julie Pace contributed to this report.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/10/2013 10:51:21 PM

The Swiss Lawyers Who Help Europe’s Richest Families Park Their Wealth Offshore

Zurich-based firm helped clients establish offshore firms and trusts to protect their assets from the taxman or over-zealous heirs.

Zurich-based firm helped clients establish offshore firms and trusts to protect their assets from the taxman or over-zealous heirs.

By Titus Plattner, Catherine Boss and François Pilet, ICIJ - April 9, 2013

http://www.icij.org/offshore/swiss-lawyers-who-help-europes-richest-families-park-their-wealth-offshore

Thyssen, Sachs and Rothschild are among Switzerland’s largest law firm clients.

Little did Zurich-based lawyer Peter Hafter imagine how things would turn out when he ordered a $2,700 offshore kit to create a front company in the Cook Islands on September 13, 1993. Twenty years on from that day, the fax he sent, the ensuing emails and all his business correspondence with Portcullis TrustNet in Rarotonga, the largest island in the archipelago, have been copied and passed on to journalists around the world.

Nor did the lawyer imagine that the internal revenue service would then reopen the case of one of his clients, and yet that is precisely what the spokesperson for the tax authorities in Berne, Yvonne von Kauffungen, announced on Thursday. This announcement was triggered by the publication of a preview based on our investigations into two decades of correspondence between Portcullis TrustNet and Peter Hafter.

(Two Swiss papers) Matin Dimanche and SonntagsZeitung have reviewed hundreds of pages of confidential documents that are part of a cache of 2.5 million files obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – probably the largest set of confidential financial data ever disclosed to the media.

Switzerland Under Pressure

The files offer a first ever glimpse of how Swiss lawyers and trusts from Geneva to St. Gallen helped clients the world over establish offshore firms and trusts to protect their assets from the taxman or over-zealous heirs. “People don’t set up this kind of structure out of altruism, but to gain a profit,” says Christian Wanner, one of Switzerland’s leading authorities on tax collection.

The offshore files show the role not only of Swiss banks but also of Swiss lawyers in helping foreign clients set up secretive offshore entities.

“Someone who has set up dozens of offshore firms for foreign clients obviously risks becoming a target for foreign tax inspectors,” predicts Beat von Rechenberg, the president of the Swiss Bar Association. Of his 9,000 members he estimates that only two to three hundred are likely to be involved. “But, a bit like banking, our profession is going through a paradigm shift,” Beat von Rechenberg says.

Let’s go back to our lawyer and his fax. He is just one of the many Swiss middlemen who feature in the offshore files. The documents show how Peter Hafter helped arrange the financial affairs of some of Europe’s wealthiest individuals – for example the banker Elie de Rothschild and industrialist Hans Heinrich Thyssen – by setting up business entities in tax havens such as Panama, the British Virgin Islands, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. This is known as “asset protection” in commercial legalese, but some experts say it’s tax avoidance and evasion.

Peter Hafter, who is now 83, is not just anyone. Prior to his recent and gradual retirement, he was one of the mainstays of Lenz & Staehelin, the largest law firm in Switzerland, which has offices in Geneva, Lausanne and Zurich. It employs more than 150 attorneys.

On September 15, 1993 Peter Hafter called for the first time – but by no means the last – on the services on Portcullis TrustNet. From Zurich, over 10,500 miles away, he opened a limited liability company called Triton Limited on the island of Rarotonga, somewhere in the middle of the South Pacific between New Zealand and Hawaii. His client? The famous Gunter Sachs, a German-born photographer and heir to the Opel dynasty (Opel cars), Brigitte Bardot’s ex-husband and a Swiss citizen since 1976. Yet Gunter Sachs does not feature in any of Triton’s official documentation. Its directors are Peter Hafter and two of Sachs’ trusted associates. On paper it is they who own the company’s 2,000 bearer shares.

Peter Hafter also set up a second front company called Tantris Limited along with four trusts – Parkland Oak, Moon Crystal, Espan Water and Sequoia – all of them incorporated in the Cook Islands between May 18, 1994 and July 22, 1996. These firms were created to host a substantial share of Gunter Sachs’s fortune. Peter Hafter is a trustee of all four, meaning that he is not acting for himself, but for the beneficiaries – who are none other than Rolf, Christian Gunnar and Claus Alexander “Halifax”, Sachs’s three sons. Yet, Gunter Sachs himself was a beneficiary of at least two of the funds and thus had access to the money.

Trusts Run from Geneva

A “special arrangement” was found to keep the name of the settlor (Gunter Sachs) secret according to a memo dated April 4, 1999. He was therefore swathed in secrecy, anonymous amid the anonymity of the Cook Islands. He retained control of the funds, though, which were managed until his death by a Geneva-based company called Galaxar SA. Another trust, Triton Trust, was set up as late as April 2007.

Things began to heat up in 2008 when Gunter Sachs moved his domicile back to Switzerland after a brief interlude in London. Lenz & Staehelin prepared a dossier for the Swiss tax authorities in which Sachs declared a fortune of around $500 million. However, the most recent tax returns reviewed by Matin Dimanche and SonntagsZeitung make no mention of any of the five trusts, or the two front companies, or the firm in Panama.

Nor is there anything about several other companies belonging to Gunter Sachs, despite official documents proving that they contained millions of dollars’ worth of assets. This is notably the case of K-Buchs and K-Erlen, both registered in Luxembourg and both absent from his tax return. According to some of his former friends, the photographer was at least as good a businessman as he was a ladies’ man, and former Galaxar employees hint that he had “much more” than the $500 million he declared to the tax authorities in Berne. Despite his flourishing business, Sachs paid no income tax in Switzerland, just $3 million in wealth tax.

A further eyebrow-raiser is the photographer’s inheritance inventory, which was drawn up by his Swiss attorneys and is dated July 2012. This document estimates the value of the works of art belonging to Sachs at only $51 million. Yet six weeks earlier, on May 22 and 23, 2012, Sotheby’s of London sold 260 pieces from the photographer’s private collection – only a part of the whole – for far more than that, fetching $65.5 million. A self-portrait of Andy Warhol from 1986 sold for $8.5 million, a flower painting went for $5.8 million, and a portrait of Brigitte Bardot, also by Warhol, was auctioned for $4.8 million. There is no trace of the income from these sales in the tax documents we have seen.

sachs-warhol

Gunter Sachs, alongside his Andy Warhol portrait. Photo: AP

Masterpieces

Peter Hafter also established 18 trusts in the Cook Islands for Baron Elie de Rothschild, the founder and former president of the Rothschild Bank in Zurich, who died in 2007. The famous lawyer declined to comment on this case. He also declined to explain his role in setting up companies for art patron Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza, wife of the German steel manufacturer Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen.

Peter Hafter even reinvented himself as an art buyer for them. Fond of Old Masters, horses and women, Baron “Heini” became a Swiss citizen in 1950 and lived in Lugano. His private collection was already world-famous when he married his fifth wife Carmen, Miss Spain in 1961 and ex-wife of the American actor Lex Barker (Tarzan, 1949-53).

Alongside her passion for small dogs and liking for cigarettes, Carmen quickly became an art expert. In the 1990s she persuaded her husband to sell a large part of his vast collection of over 1,000 works of art to the Spanish state for $350 million. The baron then set up five trusts in Bermuda to host the remaining masterpieces and bequeath them to his wife and children, each trust named after a major painter. The Carvaggio Trust was in Carmen’s name, according to her lawyer.

A Safe in Zurich

At the same time, a firm called Nautilus Trustees Limited was set up in the Cook Islands to enable Carmen to secretly purchase other paintings. She was the firm’s beneficiary, but remained in the background. The directors included Peter Hafter of Lenz & Staehelin and the Zurich-based lawyer Patrick Oesch. Nautilus’s bearer shares were sent to Lenz & Staehelin for storage in a safe in Zurich.

In a memo dated July 18, 1996, Puai Wichmann of Portcullis TrustNet sent on the correspondence he had received from Nautilus Trustees Limited in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands to Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich as agreed. The letter concerned the purchase of a painting for $751,550 three weeks earlier. “Please find enclosed various items of correspondence from Sotheby’s, in particular one relating to the purchase of ‘Water Mill at Gennep’ by Vincent Gogh [sic].”

However, Vincent van Gogh’s oil painting did not end up in Rarotonga or Zurich. Instead, it made its way to the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid in late 1996. From July 1995 to November 2002 the Thyssens carried out about twenty operations of this kind through their Nautilus hub, with a detour via the Buque Anstalt in Liechtenstein.

Vincent Van Gogh's Water Mill at Gennep.

Vincent Van Gogh’s Water Mill at Gennep.

A Billion in Bermuda

Despite having sold 775 works of art to the Spanish state ten years earlier, in 2002 Carmen found herself at the head of one the world’s largest private collections containing 655 works officially valued at €541 million ($706 million). A judgment by the Supreme Court of Bermuda on March 12, 2013, which Le Matin Dimanche has obtained, values the assets of a trust associated with Carmen, the Gauguin Trust, at about $1 billion.

The Swiss and Spanish tax experts we have interviewed identify a clear motive for this sleight of hand involving the Cook Islands and Bermuda. If Carmen Thyssen owned the works in her private collection directly, they would have been subject to Spain’s 2.5% wealth tax. To put it plainly, her lawyers’ smart advice has saved her between 10 and 20 million dollars per year, and according to the Spanish attorney Jaime Rotondo, she pays no wealth tax on her paintings in Ticino, where she is once more officially domiciled. The trusts therefore enable her to save at least $2 million per year, more than covering the few dozen thousand dollars she spends each year to keep these firms running.

Last year she sold John Constable’s painting The Lock for $36 million via a company called Omicron Collections Limited, registered in the Cayman Islands. It was very painful to sell the work, she told the BBC, but she had “no liquidity.” However, there seems to be a problem with this sale too. In order to escape Swiss wealth tax, the Caravaggio Trust is clearly irrevocable, and Carmen therefore has no access to its contents – except when she needs liquidity. The Ticino tax authorities declined to comment on the matter. As for Peter Hafter, he has not been Mrs. Thyssens’ lawyer for nearly ten years now.

University Professor

At least five other lawyers at Lenz & Staehelin have helped clients set up firms in offshore jurisdictions. “This type of arrangement has long been a national sport,” confirmed a Genevan banking law professor, who wishes to remain anonymous despite having nothing to do with this business. However, some academics seem to have turned this “sport” into something of an academic discipline. Max Baumann, a lawyer and professor at the University of Zurich until 2011, was responsible for setting up After Trust, registered in the Cook Islands on October 31, 2002, for the famous Italian producer Goffredo Lombardo. Among other films, Lombardo produced “The Leopard” starring Burt Lancaster and Alain Delon.

All After Trust’s bearer shares were placed in a company called Itaglio Services in Great Britain. These assets are worth about $7.5 million and are hidden away in a Zurich bank safe. This was all run from a company in Rarotonga and handed down to Goffredo’s son Guido after the elder Lombardo’s death in 2005. Professor Max Baumann declined to answer our questions.

Heads or Tails

As for Peter Hafter, he championed a slightly different position three years ago. In an article about the future of Switzerland as a financial centre published on February 28, 2010, he explained that many Zurich-based wealth management firms were acting through structures set up with the help of trustees in Liechtenstein and other offshore centres.

“Not all these trusts with bank accounts in Switzerland are used to avoid tax – but probably most of them are,” Peter Hafter said at the time.

Translation by Simon Pare. This story was also published in Matin Dimanche and SonntagsZeitung.
Contributors to this story: Mar Cabra, Bastian Obermayer, Frederik Obermaier and Oliver Zihlmann


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!