论文部分内容阅读
There is no doubt that in the international banking sector， there are a few central places that stick out. For instance， Switzerland’s banks are prominent for a number of reasons. Located at a convenient place， in the heart of Europe， Switzerland has maintained political neutrality throughout decades， making the country a place of stability and security.
Adding to this factor is the Swiss Franc， which is considered one of the most stable currencies in the world and is therefore often chosen as a safe haven for professional and private investors. Above all， however， one piece of legislation is attracting swarms of clients – the Swiss Bank Secret. What does this principle mean in a world of offshore funding and globalisation？ Is there room for bank secrecy in a world struggling to recover from the financial and banking crisis and what is the future for this model， which is applied only in very few countries like Switzerland， Luxembourg and Singapore？
Bank secrecy is a legal principle stating that information about clients’ financial situation and their accounts cannot not be given to third parties including authorities， as these details are considered by afore-mentioned countries to be part of legally protected privacy. Exceptions can occur when a criminal case is made， for instance when tax evasion or fraud is suspected. For the information to be delivered， a subpoena （summoning by the bank’s national court or judge） and proof of deliberate fraud is needed.
During the global economic crisis of the 1930s， Switzerland witnessed a drastic increase of accounts opened by foreigners. The neighbouring countries demanded to investigate into suspected tax evasions， yet the Swiss banks denied handing over any information. After a Swiss bank director was arrested while abroad， as well as in the aftermath of the rescue of the failing“people’s bank of Switzerland” （Schweizerische Volksbank）， bank secrecy was incorporated into Swiss law. During and after the Second World War， this legislation was criticised numerous times， both for hiding assets of Nazi Germany’s criminal elite， and for refusing to investigate and hand over assets claimed by heirs of the uncountable Jewish casualties. Indeed， Swiss banks and their privacy regulations have sparked international debates every few years.
Recently， discussion about Swiss banks’ policies has been renewed， leading to a loosening of bank secrecy in certain cases for foreign clients. In 2009， following pressure by the G20 and the OECD， Switzerland agreed to abolish the distinction between tax evasion and tax fraud so that both can now be criminally investigated with the help of Swiss bank data. Additionally， a withholding tax on interests earned on Swiss accounts by EU residents was introduced. Switzerland was even temporarily put on a grey list of non-compliant tax jurisdictions and was only removed after signing OECDstandard treaties regarding double taxation. In the context of this turmoil， several criminally obtained data carriers with details on thousands of customers’ accounts turned up， offered for sale to e.g. the German government， which however eventually declined to buy the data because of its criminal origin. After serious pressure by the US， the Swiss government in June 2010 authorised UBS （United Bank of Switzerland） to transmit information to US authorities on more than 4’000 US citizens suspected of tax evasion. When it comes to the US， another important player in global banking， their government has taken a very brisk pace on tax evaders and on obtaining information by financial institutions. Regarding their internal situation， several policies have been established （e.g. the United States’ Bank Secrecy Act （BSA） or the USA Patriot Act） to ensure that any unclear financial situations or movements are known to the government. For instance， banks are obligated to report any suspicious behaviours pointing to criminal activity. While preventing financing terror-ism， another goal of these legislations is to combat money laundering as well as preventing US-banks from receiving “stolen”assets from abroad.
FATCA （Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act） is an important international piece of legislation， as this law obligates financial institutes to report information about accounts of US citizens to US authorities. The US government is now seeking global collaboration and compliance to this law. Somewhat astonishingly， Switzerland is not voicing as many objections as it previously did on similar pieces of legislation. On the other hand， some countries， amongst them China， have voiced their concern. If the US government’s goal of implementing FATCA globally is reached， it will mean that US authorities have access to any of their citizens’ financial data.
In a similarly strict mind-set， the G8 agreed at their recent summit in Northern Ireland on several measures to keep track of international cash flow. According to their final declaration， international businesses shall report their incomes country by country； moving profits to lower-tax regions shall be increasingly difficult and tax havens shall grant more monitoring， if not insight to their books and records. OECD， G20 and several plans of actions are now expected to put these resolutions into practice.
With all these recent goings-on， it is clear that international efforts are concentrated on the elimination of what we may call“shady banking”. Yet what can really be achieved by enforcing regulations on banks’ reporting duties remains to be seen， as the ultimate responsibility lies with the customer in the first place. It is understandable that private persons fear of becoming “transparent citizens”； yet the line between controlling and privacy needs to be found， especially since non-criminal clients have nothing to fear. In times when offshore-funding is gaining popularity in spite of the business’ history of being used for tax evasion and fraud， one might have to accept that even though nobody likes being kept under surveillance， certain concessions are worth it. Because， after all， tax evasion also creates disadvantages， even costs， for the normal tax payer.
To sum up： cash flow in a globalised world is incredibly difficult to regulate， but EU commissioner for taxation A. ？emeta might have been right when he said： “The era of bank secrecy is over” in a recent meeting about tax evasion and tax fraud. Because this is what bank secrecy has recently been known for： fostering the creation of “secret” bank accounts for the sake of evading taxes worth， to be exact， 2’300 billion Euros.
Adding to this factor is the Swiss Franc， which is considered one of the most stable currencies in the world and is therefore often chosen as a safe haven for professional and private investors. Above all， however， one piece of legislation is attracting swarms of clients – the Swiss Bank Secret. What does this principle mean in a world of offshore funding and globalisation？ Is there room for bank secrecy in a world struggling to recover from the financial and banking crisis and what is the future for this model， which is applied only in very few countries like Switzerland， Luxembourg and Singapore？
Bank secrecy is a legal principle stating that information about clients’ financial situation and their accounts cannot not be given to third parties including authorities， as these details are considered by afore-mentioned countries to be part of legally protected privacy. Exceptions can occur when a criminal case is made， for instance when tax evasion or fraud is suspected. For the information to be delivered， a subpoena （summoning by the bank’s national court or judge） and proof of deliberate fraud is needed.
During the global economic crisis of the 1930s， Switzerland witnessed a drastic increase of accounts opened by foreigners. The neighbouring countries demanded to investigate into suspected tax evasions， yet the Swiss banks denied handing over any information. After a Swiss bank director was arrested while abroad， as well as in the aftermath of the rescue of the failing“people’s bank of Switzerland” （Schweizerische Volksbank）， bank secrecy was incorporated into Swiss law. During and after the Second World War， this legislation was criticised numerous times， both for hiding assets of Nazi Germany’s criminal elite， and for refusing to investigate and hand over assets claimed by heirs of the uncountable Jewish casualties. Indeed， Swiss banks and their privacy regulations have sparked international debates every few years.
Recently， discussion about Swiss banks’ policies has been renewed， leading to a loosening of bank secrecy in certain cases for foreign clients. In 2009， following pressure by the G20 and the OECD， Switzerland agreed to abolish the distinction between tax evasion and tax fraud so that both can now be criminally investigated with the help of Swiss bank data. Additionally， a withholding tax on interests earned on Swiss accounts by EU residents was introduced. Switzerland was even temporarily put on a grey list of non-compliant tax jurisdictions and was only removed after signing OECDstandard treaties regarding double taxation. In the context of this turmoil， several criminally obtained data carriers with details on thousands of customers’ accounts turned up， offered for sale to e.g. the German government， which however eventually declined to buy the data because of its criminal origin. After serious pressure by the US， the Swiss government in June 2010 authorised UBS （United Bank of Switzerland） to transmit information to US authorities on more than 4’000 US citizens suspected of tax evasion. When it comes to the US， another important player in global banking， their government has taken a very brisk pace on tax evaders and on obtaining information by financial institutions. Regarding their internal situation， several policies have been established （e.g. the United States’ Bank Secrecy Act （BSA） or the USA Patriot Act） to ensure that any unclear financial situations or movements are known to the government. For instance， banks are obligated to report any suspicious behaviours pointing to criminal activity. While preventing financing terror-ism， another goal of these legislations is to combat money laundering as well as preventing US-banks from receiving “stolen”assets from abroad.
FATCA （Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act） is an important international piece of legislation， as this law obligates financial institutes to report information about accounts of US citizens to US authorities. The US government is now seeking global collaboration and compliance to this law. Somewhat astonishingly， Switzerland is not voicing as many objections as it previously did on similar pieces of legislation. On the other hand， some countries， amongst them China， have voiced their concern. If the US government’s goal of implementing FATCA globally is reached， it will mean that US authorities have access to any of their citizens’ financial data.
In a similarly strict mind-set， the G8 agreed at their recent summit in Northern Ireland on several measures to keep track of international cash flow. According to their final declaration， international businesses shall report their incomes country by country； moving profits to lower-tax regions shall be increasingly difficult and tax havens shall grant more monitoring， if not insight to their books and records. OECD， G20 and several plans of actions are now expected to put these resolutions into practice.
With all these recent goings-on， it is clear that international efforts are concentrated on the elimination of what we may call“shady banking”. Yet what can really be achieved by enforcing regulations on banks’ reporting duties remains to be seen， as the ultimate responsibility lies with the customer in the first place. It is understandable that private persons fear of becoming “transparent citizens”； yet the line between controlling and privacy needs to be found， especially since non-criminal clients have nothing to fear. In times when offshore-funding is gaining popularity in spite of the business’ history of being used for tax evasion and fraud， one might have to accept that even though nobody likes being kept under surveillance， certain concessions are worth it. Because， after all， tax evasion also creates disadvantages， even costs， for the normal tax payer.
To sum up： cash flow in a globalised world is incredibly difficult to regulate， but EU commissioner for taxation A. ？emeta might have been right when he said： “The era of bank secrecy is over” in a recent meeting about tax evasion and tax fraud. Because this is what bank secrecy has recently been known for： fostering the creation of “secret” bank accounts for the sake of evading taxes worth， to be exact， 2’300 billion Euros.