Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino complained to the RCMP on Thursday about documents of unknown origin that purport to show details of offshore banking by Fantino.

"The allegation is completely false," said Chris McCluskey, Fantino's director of communications. "The minister has complained to the RCMP about possible mistaken identity, or identity theft."

Fantino personally denied having offshore accounts on Thursday after the website ipolitics.ca published a story revealing that Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is looking at the documents.

"No, I don't have any offshore accounts," Fantino said. "I'm not going to get into that stuff. That's mudslinging. No. Unbelievable."

Postmedia News has had the documents for weeks but has not reported on them until now, because reporters were unable to determine their veracity and similar documents have been shown to be forgeries in the past.

The documents purport to show several accounts in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas containing hundreds of thousands of dollars under the name Julian Fantino.

It is legal to have offshore accounts, but they are often used to avoid taxes, and Fantino's public declaration filed with Dawson do not show any such accounts.

The documents were provided to Dawson's office by Richard Lorello, an IT consultant and former Conservative candidate from Vaughan, the suburban Toronto riding that Fantino represents.

Lorello received the documents from an anonymous source last spring after he publicly raised questions about financial arrangements in the Vaughan Conservative riding association.

Lorello has been communicating via email with the source for months, but does not know the person's name. He said he forwarded them to the ethics commissioner because they raise questions that must be answered.

Read the original post:
Fantino calls in Mounties to probe 'mudslinging' over offshore accounts

ST PETER PORT, Guernsey, April 23, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

Research shows time and time again that for the vast majority of expatriates, organising their offshore savings is often left on the "to do" list until after the move aboard, at which point inertia and amnesia taker over. Meanwhile, savings are left languishing in low return accounts, often with unnecessary tax being deducted, so eroding their value still further.

Yet for many, finance is actually at the heart of the reason for moving abroad. For some, going abroad is driven by the aim of saving more and within a shorter timeframe. For those retiring, enjoying a better lifestyle with lower living costs is the aim, so protecting the value of savings is vitally important.

Savings can take many forms, from simple offshore deposit accounts to more complex equity based funds and plans. At the core of everybody's portfolio, however big or small, should be a simple deposit account for rainy days and emergencies. What many do not realise is that once they live abroad, the vast majority of us can open our own offshore savings account with as little as 10,000.

What is an offshore account?

An offshore account is simply a savings account like any other, but it will be located offshore, out of the country where you are living. Offshore accounts located in specifically designated overseas territories have a key advantage in that they are able to offer interest on savings which is paid before tax has been deducted. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are highly regarded, well regulated jurisdictions which specialise in offering offshore accounts to UK citizens who have left the UK to live or retire abroad and they offer many such accounts from high street bank and building society names.

If you are working or retired and you have left the UK permanently and are no longer tax resident there, here are five reasons why you might want one of these accounts:

Wherever you are living, looking after your savings should be one of your top priorities. Skipton International Limited offers a range of easy access, notice and limited issue fixed rate bond accounts. Skipton International Ltd is part of Skipton Building Society, the fourth largest in the UK with nearly 14 billion of assets.

Editor's notes:

1. AER stands for Annual Equivalent Rate and illustrates what the rate would be if interest was paid and added each year.

Read more:
Offshore Savings Accounts - Should you Open One?

WILLIAM MACE

The Reserve Bank is warning the public that claims being made by an unlicensed New Zealand-based offshore investment company may be false.

First International Bancorp Limited's website says it is registered under the New Zealand Commonwealth Offshore Banking Act of 1993, but a Reserve Bank notice issued today says that legislation doesn't exist and the company is breaking other banking rules.

"This entity is not licensed or prudentially supervised by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand or any other New Zealand authority," says the RBNZ statement.

"It is not registered under the New Zealand Commonwealth Offshore Banking Act of 1993 as no such Act exists in New Zealand."

First International Bancorp Ltd is now registered with the Companies Office under the name 2188498 Limited, and is owned by Heritage Holding Group of the British Virgin Islands.

Its sole director is Victor Vilches of Florida and its New Zealand address is 69 Ridge Road, Albany an address that is notorious for hosting offshore investment companies. Over 2000 companies have been registered to that address.

Under the website heading "Six ways to earn with FIB", the company appears to offer US$100 incentives for sales agents who sign up new sales agents and clients.

The sales structure moves up in levels to Marketing Master Broker which is said to be "the highest independent level in the FIB Marketing organization" and "a unique income opportunity".

The use of the word "bancorp" in a company name is restricted by the Reserve Bank, and is to be used only by registered banks.

Read more:
Reserve Bank warns public

You may recall (as I and my offspring do) the controversy about six years ago around the demotion of Pluto. There seemed to me to be reasonable arguments on both sides, and indeed, my household included pro-Pluto partisans and partisans for a new, clear definition of planet that might end up leaving Pluto on the exo-planet side of the line.

At the time, Neil deGrasse Tyson was probably the most recognizable advocate of the anti-Pluto position, and since then he has not been shy about reaffirming his position. I had taken this vocal (even gleeful) advocacy as just an instance of a scientist working to do effective public outreach, but recently, Ive been made aware of reasons to believe that there may be more going on with Neil deGrasse Tyson here.

You may be familiar with the phenomenon of offshore banking, which involves depositors stashing their assets in bank accounts in countries with much lower taxes than the jurisdictions in which the depositors actually reside. Indeed, residents of the U.S. have occasionally used offshore bank accounts (and bank secrecy policies) to hide their money from the prying (and tax-assessing) eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.

Officially, those who are subject to U.S. income tax are required to declare any offshore bank accounts they might have. However, since the offshore banks themselves have generally not been required by law to report interest income on their accounts to the U.S. tax authorities, lots of account holders have kept mum about it, too.

Recently, however, the U.S. government has been more vigorous in its efforts to track down this taxable offshore income, and has put more pressure on the offshore bankers not to aid their depositors in hiding assets. International pressure seems to be pushing banks in the direction of more transparency and accountability.

What does any of this have to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson, or with Pluto?

You may recall, back when the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was formally considering the question of Plutos status, that Neil deGrasse Tyson was a vocal proponent of demoting Pluto from planethood. Despite his position at the Hayden Planetarium, a position in which he had rather more contact with school children and other interested non-scientists making heartfelt arguments in support of Plutos planethood, Neil deGrasse Tyson was utterly unmoved.

Steely in his determination to get Pluto reclassified. And forward looking. Add to that remarkably well-dressed (seriously, have you seen his vests?) for a Ph.D. astrophysicist who has spent most of his career working for museums.

The only way it makes sense is if Neil deGrasse Tyson has been stashing money someplace it can earn interest without being taxed. Given his connections, this can only mean off-world banking.

But again, what does this have to do with Pluto?

Read more here:
Who profits from killing Pluto?

By Lynnley Browning

(Reuters) - The case of a wealthy U.S. businessman who pleaded guilty to evading taxes but then sued the Swiss bank where he hid his money is scheduled to go to trial on May 8, the first major test of civil legal challenges to Swiss banks that sold offshore private banking services to help Americans evade taxes.

The civil suit, filed against UBS AG in federal court in Santa Ana, California - and another filed against UBS in federal court in Chicago - will probe whether clients can legally rely on their private bankers' assertions there is no need to disclose the accounts on their tax returns or sign required disclosures.

Tax lawyers describe the suits, emerging from a crackdown by federal authorities on Swiss banks, as the first of their kind in the United States to assert that Swiss bankers made improper assertions to their U.S. clients about the tax implications of their offshore accounts.

In the California case filed in 2008, Russia-born American billionaire Igor Olenicoff accuses UBS of fraud in handling some $200 million he kept in offshore accounts and wrongfully advising him he did not have to report them to the tax-collecting IRS. Olenicoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 2007 and to lying on his tax returns by failing to disclose his offshore accounts, and paid $52 million in back taxes. His suit seeks $500 million in damages.

The Chicago case, which seeks class-action status, was filed in June 2011 on behalf of former UBS clients Matthew Thomas of California and Himanshu Patel of Arizona. Thomas and Patel previously paid back taxes, interest and penalties to the IRS related to their Swiss accounts. They accuse UBS of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly telling them that their accounts, opened when the two worked overseas during the last two decades, did not have to be disclosed to the IRS.

UBS argues in both cases that its clients have a duty to know what to declare on their U.S. tax returns. A UBS spokeswoman in New York, Karina Byrne, declined to comment specifically on the lawsuits, but said the bank "does not give any tax advice to our clients, and we encourage clients to seek third-party tax advice."

U.S. INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY

The two cases are unfolding at a time when U.S. authorities are conducting a major investigation into the Swiss banking industry. The U.S. Justice Department has indicted one Swiss private bank, Wegelin, and charged scores of Swiss bankers and their American clients with tax evasion.

In 2009, UBS averted indictment and paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement in which it admitted to fraud and conspiracy in helping about 19,000 wealthy Americans hide up to $20 billion in secret bank accounts.

Read the original post:
Lawsuits test UBS advice on offshore bank accounts