Talk:Paradise Papers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Argentina listed, but Brazil is shown on the map

Hi everybdody. I don't know how to edit a map, but the map is showing Brazil. I believe this may be a mistake, as the article doesn't mention Brazil, but Argentina, and Argentina is not colored. Fabianokm (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fabianokm: See here as there is a list of people named in the Paradise Papers. As of 6 November, there are two Brazilian cabinet ministers named in the Paradise Papers. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jay Coop: Thanks. Fabianokm (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External link: Republic?

I get it that it's a pressure website/org focusing on UK's monarchy, but what are the significance and direct relevance of it to this particular topic? Didn't seem to be mentioned at all in the article. --fireattack (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What about Santos exactly?

Why is Santos mentioned as one of the main figures mentioned in the Papers, and yet there is zero information about him in the article? Is he mentioned or not?? -CesarFelipe (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is an answer: http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2017/11/05/59ff586f22601dea7f8b460c.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

removed text

• Rex Tillerson: "(he ran the Yemen division of ExxonMobil, which had ties to the Bermuda-based offshore firm)". He was CEO of the entire company. This statement may be true for some portion of his career, perhaps, possibly for the time when he held the company. but it doesn't match what I am looking at and it's uncited. I have no objection to it returning to article if someone thinks we need it, but please cite it, and please not in a parenthesis like this, which is very bad for readability. Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Under Mexico, I removed the name Alejandro Cantú. I am unable to determine which one is involved. I will put the name back if this becomes clear, or someone else can if they have the source for it. I don't speak Spanish well enough to rely on Spanish-language reporting, given the BLP concerns. The other names listed with that article as a reference at least have their own WP articles, lending them some plausibility given the citation. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Under Canada, I removed a reference to Kolber's son, which does not match what I am looking at. All the genealogy is on the Bronfman side; it appears that Stephen took over a long-standing arrangement with the Kolbers when he took charge of his father's business.I do not see a reference to a Kolber fils and believe the previous editor was a bit confused. I also removed "teamed up with" as it seems to me to describe a long-time arrangement in terms which make it seem recent, temporary andad hoc. Elinruby (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictures and "WEIGHT"

There are a lot of pictures of people in the article with only the text that "--- is listed in the papers". I think that per WP:BLP principles, and more practically, to reduce edit wars over who people like and dislike, we should have a standard that there needs to be significant coverage about that person in particular. There might be some other threshold needed like we know (and say) the amount of money involved, or that there is some kind of investigation or other action taken. I mean, it's more than a terabyte of people and we can't just pick names out of a hat here or it'll turn into World War III around here. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional US Names

Billionaire Democrat donor George Soros also is mentioned a number of times. Reference 5 in article listing. This makes me wonder who else on the political left the contributors to this article have omitted. Reference 5 NT4MaximusD (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Former U.S. Secretary of Commerce to President Obama and Hyatt Hotels billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker is one of 40 politicians named in Sunday’s release of the Paradise Papers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:F38A:3C00:3486:549:129E:236C (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Akira Toriyama (dragonball, Dr, Slump author) also named in the papers

I'm not an expert of how a wikipedia article should be written, but I'm leaving this source for you guys here, so it should be added to the Japan part of the article: http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/11/06/dragon-ball-author-named-in-paradise-papers-leak the real source (asahi shimbun newspaper) is cited at the end of this article. thank you 93.34.55.57 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia

Wasn't Malcolm Turnbull PM mentioned in the Paradise Papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markireland (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He was in List_of_people_named_in_the_Panama_Papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.162.97 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Panama Papers mentions

Do we have to mention Panama Papers here? xyz and abc also appeared in Panama Papers ? dushyant 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidushyant (talk • contribs)

I dunno about "have to"...I think it's relevant if it's the case but I'd prefer something less formulaic personally

Colleges and Universities

In addition to the corporations and individuals named, many colleges and universities (in the US and UK, at least) have been named as investing their endowments with EnCap.[1][2][3] It seems worth mentioning somewhere in the article. As a student at a university so named, I don't feel like I can include such information. siddharthist (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why "paradise"?

Please, can anyone tell me why are these documents called "paradise"? Is it a family name? I can't find this info anywhere... 198.58.157.196 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Because the money is largely located in the Caribbean, commonly referred to as "paradise" because of its beauty. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes but the name needs an etymology section. These documents were produced fully formed for media reproduction with the name Paradise Papers already decided upon by the publishers. It smells of spin doctoring to me. The origin of the term and who coined it needs stating in the article.Schreibmaschiner (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A section mentioning how the papers got their name, if properly sourced, would be useful. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the tropical paradise explanation is given in the early stories on the ICIJ site. It might also be worth noting that Panamanian public figures expressed all sorts of outrage about the name of the entire country being applied to the scandal, but please not in the excruciating detail that it's discussed on the Panama Papers page.

Relevancy of the Queen of the UK having accounts in places she is the ruler of

Why is it relevant to this page that the Queen of the UK has accounts or investments in Bermuda and the Caymen Islands when she is the Monarch of those two territories? It would be like saying in the article that the President of Saint Kitts has investments located in Saint Kitts or that the Governor of Idaho has investments in Idaho potato farms, its entirely irrelevant and non-NPOV insinuating foul play.XavierGreen (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Queen being in there is borderline significant. We can probably mention it but not in lede and no image. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I *strongly* disagree. She is Queen of England, not Bermuda, and her relationship with Bermuda through the Commonwealth is strictly a pro forma nod to history. Given the vastness of her inherited wealth, many British citizens may feel it is unseemly to be evading taxes and pursuing wealth growth in other countries, and I am adamantly opposed to editors treating favored public figures more gently than others who have done much the same things. Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: both Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are British Overseas Territories and thus come under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The Queen is as much the Queen of these two place as she is of England, Scotland and Wales. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is literally the Queen of Bermuda and Queen of the Cayman Islands71.187.6.239 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally agree and think the images and focus on individuals right now is a mess and could be better organized. The pictures seem to give UNDUE weight to this. While important, I think it could be toned down due to sensitivity regarding WP:BLP. Shaded0 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP is a major concern in an article such as this and we had big arguments about it on Panama Papers. I personally think it's irrelevant whether the Queen in name is sovereign of Bermuda. She has no power over its tax laws. In theory she could veto something but in practice this is never done. I think oh-no-not-the-queen is a bit of someone's idealism. It is either true or it is not and wikipedia is better served by including her side of the story, ie she paid her taxes. That said, if anyone wants to take out the bit about the governance of Bermuda, including my amendment, I think the article would be better for it. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the story received widespread coverage in UK news, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Queen should apologise if any investments were made to avoid tax...

— Paradise Papers: Queen should apologise, suggests Corbyn, BBC News.

— Paradise Papers: Queen faces backlash after news Duchy of Lancaster invests millions offshore, The Independent.

— Labour demands inquiry into Paradise Papers tax avoidance, Daily Mail. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

the story received widespread coverage in UK news... but not only: it also received widespread coverage in the other side of the sea:

—Révélations sur les placements secrets de la reine d’Angleterre aux îles Caïmans Le Monde «Ces révélations sur les avoirs d’Elisabeth II, l’une des femmes les plus riches du monde, ne vont pas manquer de relancer au Royaume-Uni le débat sur son patrimoine, d’autant que ces montages n’apparaissent pas dans les déclarations annuelles de la Couronne.»

— "Paradise Papers" : les mis en cause, dont la reine d'Angleterre, rejettent toute irrégularité l'indépendant Le secrétaire américain au Commerce, les services de la reine d'Angleterre ou encore des ministres brésiliens et russes ont mis en avant la légalité de leurs investissements face aux révélations des "Paradise Papers" sur des pratiques d'optimisation fiscale à l'échelle mondiale.

—Paradise Papers : la reine d'Angleterre aussi ! France Inter Les Paradise Papers révèlent que (...)

—In Luxembourg also: La reine cache de l'argent aux îles CaïmansL'essentiel

—Royaume-Uni : les Paradise papers éclaboussent la reine France TV Info

—Ca se passe en Europe : l'argent de la Reine d'Angleterre investi dans des fonds offshoreLes échos

But I wonder if it has to be or not to be relevant to this page as I assume that each subject/EU-cityzen of the Queen of the UK might also have accounts or investments in Bermuda and the Caymen Islands when they are the subject/EU-cityzen of the Monarch of those two territories, rather than to pay taxes to England, a territory subject to the EU law.

Additional, as those texts say sometime La reine & sometimes la reine d'Angleterre I was wondering if there is an official title. It looks like governmental sites prefer to say la Reine Elizabeth or la Reine [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's analogous to dual nationality. I am not sure what the original poster's point was, but I took the post to mean that if she is queen she can do as she likes, ie if she is the one doing it, it is not illegal. My understanding of the matter is that she hasn't had that sort of autocratic power for centuries, and although she theoretically is head of state in Commonwealth countries, in practice they are self-governing. This is somewhat less true in British Overseas Territories, where the UK seems to have foreign relations responsibilities. I suspect the details may vary by jurisdiction, much like her titles, spelled out here. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Queen is the sovereign of both the Caymen Islands and Bermuda, as such her having investments in areas she has control over is not notable and is to be expected, as such they are not really "offshore accounts" for her, because she is the head of government of those polities. Furthermore and of even more relevance is that under the laws of the United Kingdom the Queen is not required to pay income taxes, at all. She only does so on a voluntary basis, in effect making donations to the government. As she has no tax liability, investing in offshore accounts does not act as a "tax dodge" because she isn't required to pay in the first place. Since having offshore accounts has no effect on her financial or tax liability what so ever, why is it notable to mention her here?.XavierGreen (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it notable to mention anyone here? I see no reason why the Queen should be special. As for "offshore", meh, if the article says that and you think it is wrong, I find that pretty legalistic but OK, change it to "registered in Bermuda" (or wherever) if you think it's more accurate.Elinruby (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As for why she would do this if she is not required to pay taxes, which she isn't, in theory, and pays them voluntarily, which she does, I decline to speculate. But these companies can be used to limit corporate liability for pollution or workman's compensation claims or accidents with yachts or private jets, or circumvent inconvenient estate laws, hide evidence of bribery or divert Treasury revenues to private use. I am not accusing Her Majesty of any of that, but you can't say we should omit her name because she must not be avoiding taxes. Why should she be treated any differently than the King of Saudi Arabia? The former Prime Minister of Canada, the current Prime Minister of Australia, etc, etc... seriously. Why is she different?

Criminality

I note that this article has been included within WikiProject Crime and also put in Category:Banking crimes. But almost all of the reports on the Paradise Papers note that there is virtually no criminal activity was revealed (and none at all involving criminality on the part of banks), and the only references within the article itself to criminality relates to the fact of leaking data. Any other views on this before I make any changes? --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"almost all of the reports on the Paradise Papers" -- When you say "almost," it implies that there are actual reports linking this newly revealed tax avoidance and tax evasion, which is a crime. Have you seen them? Or as you seem to imply, are the elaborate methods that the wealthy beneficiaries of these tax avoidance schemes use, undertaken merely to avoid publicity? In any case, indictments would take longer than the initial reporting. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

it will be criminal if they did intend to save tax, just like accusation on Apple, and new tax law of Australia, but currently no companies were charged according to the news, so may be too WP:crystal to say it involved crime. Matthew_hk tc 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the article: The Democratic leader in the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the ranking Democratic member of the Senate finance committee, Ron Wyden, issued a joint statement accusing Republicans of "pushing a reform of the tax code that fails to close egregious loopholes revealed by the leaks." This implies that in those senators' view, these tax avoidance schemes do not rise to the level of tax evasion (in the US). Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am generalising of course, but most of the articles which I have seen published so far have all contained some varients of "this is not illegal, but...". Examples: The Guardian "Unlike last year’s leak of the Panama Papers, which exposed illegal tax evasion, the Paradise Papers have not uncovered criminality."[8]; Inquirer: "detailing secretive offshore deals that, while not illegal, are embarrassing for those concerned."[9]; Scotsman: "the BBC’s flagship 10pm news programme on Monday, repeatedly stressed that no laws had been broken and that UK tax due had been paid."[10]. The prevalent opinion seems to be lack of illegality rather than presence of illegality. I think it is various dangerous to categorise on the basis of an assumption that illegality might be uncovered in due course. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Offshore shell companies are not *necessarily* illegal but *can* be used to break laws, hide bribe money and money skimmed from national Treasuries, and launder money. The question is why the lack of transparency. But people *have* been arrested. Elinruby (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)