whistleblowers: wikileaks, snowden i...

[braca]

Treba mu prvo objasniti da od vlasti koju bira direktno zavisi pravna sigurnost svih, pa i investitora.

 

Ovo za nabavku robe resavas slicnim zakonima kojima taj oblik poreskog inzenjeringa resava i EU, cak i kad se ne radi o ofsor kompanijama, vec o poreskim prelivanjima unutar zajednice. Za ovo drugo, koliko shvatam sta pricas, ne radi se niokakvom poreskom inzenjering, vec o utaji poreza (placanje fiktivnih poslova), sto je ozbiljno krivicno delo.

 

A ako se desi da su investitori pijavice koje nam piju krv decenijama i ostavljaju taman toliko da mozemo da prezivimo i pravimo jos sveze krvi, boze moj, sta ima veze, vazno je da su oni pravno sigurni...

[Venom]

Evo ja mogu slobodno da kazem da me sad a i duze zabole qrac za pravnu sigurnost investitora i ostalih makera, kao i za ostale zvake za ludake.

[dillinger]

Možda će Berni neočekivano postati kandidat demokrata?

 

Kako da ne, mislim pogle ko stoji iza ovih što su objavili 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our supporters

The ICIJ is a non-profit organization. We give our work away for free. We rely heavily on charitable foundations and on financial support from the public. Without your help, we cannot exist.

Cross-border investigative journalism is among the most expensive and riskiest in the world.

Recent ICIJ funders include: Adessium Foundation, Open Society Foundations, The Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Fritt Ord Foundation, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, The Ford Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and Waterloo Foundation.

We are also very grateful for the support of the Australian philanthropist and businessman Graeme Wood.

We welcome individual donations in support of our work. You can make a gift online here. Any help, no matter how small, is most welcome.

 

[Braća Strugacki]

Treba mu prvo objasniti da od vlasti koju bira direktno zavisi pravna sigurnost svih, pa i investitora.

 

Ovo za nabavku robe resavas slicnim zakonima kojima taj oblik poreskog inzenjeringa resava i EU, cak i kad se ne radi o ofsor kompanijama, vec o poreskim prelivanjima unutar zajednice. Za ovo drugo, koliko shvatam sta pricas, ne radi se niokakvom poreskom inzenjering, vec o utaji poreza (placanje fiktivnih poslova), sto je ozbiljno krivicno delo.

 

Ovo prvo - imali smo centralu u Švajcarskoj, proizvodnje kojekude. Ako se dobro sećam, tada je porez na profit u Nemačkoj bio 44%, a u Švajcarskoj 25%. Možda grešim u ciframa, nije ni toliko važno. Firma je bila preformulicana tako da je jedini profitni centar postala firma u Švajcarskoj, dok se roba proizvedena u fabrikama po Nemačkoj, praktično prodavala firmi u Švajcarskoj po proizvodnim cenama. Legalno, jednostavno, objavljeno u raznim kompanijskim info sredstvima komunikacije, kasnije i eksterno, kao genijalan potez za povećanje profita. 

 

Ovo drugo je možda nelegalno, ali je pitanje tumačenja. Vlasniku firme je potrebna analiza proizvodnog portfolija, kao i njegova optimizacija. Tu uslugu plati firmi sa nekih ostrva koja dogovoreni posao stvarno izvede. Da li ga je preplatio ili nije, da li mu je to sredstvo za iznošenje para, to sve mora da bude dokazivo, ukoliko su nam zakoni ovakvi. A analize su vazda potrebne.

[Prospero]

Odgovor Mossack Fonsece
 
 
neke crtice:
 
 

- However, we can confirm that the parties in many of the circumstances you cite are not and have never been clients of Mossack Fonseca.
 
- We are also subject to regulatory oversight and enforcement in all of the other jurisdictions where we incorporate companies. In addition, we have always complied with international protocols such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and, more recently, the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to assure as is reasonably possible, that the companies we incorporate are not being used for tax evasion, money-laundering, terrorist finance or other illicit purposes.
 
- For 40 years Mossack Fonseca has operated beyond reproach in our home country and in other jurisdictions where we have operations. Our firm has never been accused or charged in connection with criminal wrongdoing.
 
- We are not involved in managing our clients’ companies. Excluding the professional fees we earn, we do not take possession or custody of clients’ money, or have anything to do with any of the direct financial aspects related to operating their businesses.
 
- We strongly disagree with any statement implying that the primary function of the services we provide is to facilitate tax avoidance and/or evasion. Our company does not advise clients on the structuring of corporate vehicles and the use they may make of same; and we likewise do not offer solutions whose purpose is to hide unlawful acts such as tax evasion.
 
- Thus, most of the persons mentioned in your questionnaire are not our clients nor do they appear in our database as persons related to the companies we formed.
 
- Notwithstanding the above, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify that we have never knowingly allowed the use of our companies by individuals having any relationship with North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, and other countries mentioned by you that might have been considered as a threat to any other country’s national security or that have been listed by a sanctioning body.
 
- Banks currently carry out their due diligence procedures just as we do. It is difficult, not to say impossible, not to provide banks with the identity of final beneficiaries and the origin of funds.
 
- As to your allegations about this matter, we do not know what the source of your information is, and we categorically deny their veracity. Let us be clear that it is not our policy to hide or destroy documentation that may be of use in any ongoing investigation or proceeding.
 
- From the way you present your “facts”, it appears that you have had unauthorized access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company and have presented and interpreted them out of context. We trust that you are fully aware that using information/documentation unlawfully obtained is a crime, and we will not hesitate to pursue all available criminal and civil remedies.

 

[borris_]

Zar ove zadnje dvije tacke nisu kontradiktorne?

[dragance]

Naravno da jesu. A i ceo odgovor je tipični advokatski: pokrijem svoje dupe "a 'mnogi' koje ste pomenuli nisu naši klijenti". :D

 

I naravno da nisu oni radili utaju poreza, oni su samo pomogli da se osnuje firma po lokalnim zakonima.

[Prospero]

Aj kad smo već na temi
 
 

 
If verified, Turkey may have been exposed to the biggest private data theft ever recorded

 

The Turkish citizenship database is allegedly hacked and currently online.  If the leak is confirmed, it will constitute the biggest privacy security breach on record, ever.

The 6,6 GB database contains personal information on 49,611,709 Turkish citizens, including of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Prime Minister Ahmet Devutoglu. Associated Press has verified the authenticity of a sample of ten names.

A website features the whole data base, including parameters such as the National Identity Number, name and surname, gender, city and date of birth, and full address.

The responsibility for this massive data-theft is claimed by so-called hacktivists and is apparently politically motivated and targeting Turkey’s President. There is also a reference to the perceived incompetence of Donald Trump.

Over the last few months Turkey has been a frequent target by Hacktivists, including the Anonymous. A high profile attack was a 17.8 GB file containing information retrieved from a Turkey’s General Directorate of Security (EGM) database.

[Prospero]

Zar ove zadnje dvije tacke nisu kontradiktorne?

Ne kapiram kako su zadnje dve tačke u koliziji, to što "ne kriju" dokumente ako su oni potrebni nekoj istrazi ne podrazumeva novinarsku "istragu", tj ako su dokumenti dostupni vlastima po zahtevu ne znači da su slobodni za distribuciju.

 

Ili mislite na nešto drugo? 

 

Naravno da jesu. A i ceo odgovor je tipični advokatski: pokrijem svoje dupe "a 'mnogi' koje ste pomenuli nisu naši klijenti". :D

 

I naravno da nisu oni radili utaju poreza, oni su samo pomogli da se osnuje firma po lokalnim zakonima.

Ma odgovor je pravi lawyer speak.

 

 

[Aion]

Evo ja mogu slobodno da kazem da me sad a i duze zabole qrac za pravnu sigurnost investitora i ostalih makera, kao i za ostale zvake za ludake.

Mozda nekima zivot u Severnoj Koreji ili Kubi, pa i u fasistickim diktaturama Latinske Amerike u ne tako davnoj proslosti, (da ne ispadne da imam nesto protiv samo komunizma) deluje primaljivo, meni ne.

[Dark Wader]

Mozda nekima zivot u Severnoj Koreji ili Kubi, pa i u fasistickim diktaturama Latinske Amerike u ne tako davnoj proslosti, (da ne ispadne da imam nesto protiv samo komunizma) deluje primaljivo, meni ne.

Ma da, evo Kameron nije pravno siguran u UK,,

Edited April 5, 2016 by Dark Wader

[Lezilebovich]

@Aion ... bilo bi dobro, ako možeš, da napišeš benefite paname™ i kako bi ukidanje takve prakse uništilo našu privredu. Stvarno me zanima i jedno takvo gledište

Edited April 5, 2016 by Lezilebovich

[Aion]

Ako izuzmemo ove grandizne projektu u ciju isplativos uopste ne verujem, moj osecaj je da se najveci deo nase privrede bazira na radu posredstvom ofsore kompanija. I to je dobro, inace bi smo vec sad imali potpuno preuzimanje privrede od strane grupice ljudi skoncentrisane oko vrha vlasti. Pri tome to ponekad uopste nisu poreski rajevi o kojima se u ovde prica. Recimo, dobar deo domace softverske industrije ide preko ofsor firmi registrovanih u Velokoj Britaniji, gde je porez na dobit znacajno veci (mislim oko 25%) nego kod nas (15%).

[Venom]

Sutra izlazi knjiga

 

[koksy]

to je taj osećaj za kupljenje kajmaka.