I am realistically wondering now, what changes does this bring.
If London won't be interesting anymore for oligarchs, what will happen with prices of accomodation in center?
If Switzerland is not a neutral country anymore, where will the money go?
There should be prisoners dilemma and therefore some country should emerge to fill this "market need"
Dubai is currently the go-to destination of shady money. It’s the next Monaco/Swizerland. The local rulers have de facto control over government, jurisdictional and businesses. Any money is welcome as long as the right parties get their share - the rule of the law does not apply as long as you hire the right lawyer and advisors. It’s still the US ally in Middle East and so far, Dubai/UAE has had a blind eye on their lax money-laundering practice.
Here is a good article from The Economist on the situation. I apologise for the low quality of photo of the page.
Not blocked here on 3. You’re right in that the networks often have the “adult content” filter (porn, gambling etc.) turned on, but you should be able to turn it off pretty easily. I suspect it’s that filtering that’s blocking archive.org for you
> The local rulers have de facto control over government, jurisdictional and businesses
> ...the rule of the law does not apply...
All of these should be red flags - even if you yourself are shady, you want strong property rights and rule of law, not whatever the local despot feels like doing that day.
The article above is 12 years old. You will be shocked -- shocked! -- to hear that the prince doing the torturing was judged innocent, while the brothers who published the tape were convicted of blackmail.
Indeed. If the Chinese & Indians fail to take advantage of this situation it will be a showcase of incompetence and corruption by Asian governments.
The checklist fir being an attractive investment target is large country, stable government (check, check), strong property rights and fair treatment of foreigners (don't know, don't know). If Americans start confiscating assets, then the Asians have an opportunity to absorb a lot of money if their governments can be held in check.
The problem is that especially in the case of China foreigners do not have any practical justice in the court. It is the rule of the party, not rule of the law. Any party member gets preferential treatment over a foreigner, as they know strings to pull and people to bribe.
China excels in certain categories, and protecting the rich and connected is one of those. If you get too rich and powerful independent of the government maybe you can go back to being in trouble too.
Indian Justice System is largely seen as fair, but it is tooooooooooooooooooooo slow.
Cases take years to be concluded. Sometimes, even decades. The backlog is huge and the relatively very low cost of suing creates a lot of civil suits. In the US, losing a case means paying the costs of the winning side usually - In India the costs are calculated at a ridiculously low rate, that does not deter frivolous cases at all.
Also, the Indian Govt is known for its over zealous taxation of foreign entities - termed tax terrorism. Hardly a tax haven.
Switzerland has some people leaking the egregious money laundering and connections to bad people parking their money there. And I want to applaud those people. Insider leaking that info is an important world wide defense against the moneyed rich getting too much power.
I think the idea is to transit your money through there to launder it. part of a internation shell company game. sure the money coming from businesses and companies there look shady but not enough to cause anyone to investigate it as enough powerful and politically connected people from multiple countries would not like it to be looked at.
I don't think OP's characterization is accurate at all.
Rule of law very much exists in the UAE. So much so that they have carved out a distinct common law system (so called DIFC courts) which effectively provide English language common law as a service. This was explicitly done to make investment and commercial activity in the country attractive, and within DIFC boundaries (and IIRC at this point nation-wide) supersedes the authority of Dubai's own courts on a whole range of matters.
Those 'financial free zones' basically function like charter cities so international investors do not have to deal with the domestic Shariah law system.
If that's a non-rhetorical question no they don't because that's a criminal matter, not a commercial one that was handled in an Emirati court in 2009. But distrust as a consequence of failures of the domestic system where exactly why they bothered to built an entire parallel judicial system largely in the decade afterwards.
In 2019, in DIFC, the anti-money laundering officer, whose job is to stop money laundering, was sacked on whistle blowing instead of money-laundering stopped:
DIFC harly has a reputable track record. While on a paper it might sound independent, in reality is it just another extension to Sheik’s tentacles. Any compliance is just lip services.
Long before Dubai registered on the map, their speciality was gold smuggling towards India. It's also no coincidence their entire economy is run by British expats, the native citizens are an indolent rentier class that just skims off the top.
There's less appeal if you're an American since the USG taxes you anywhere in the world, but if you're Canadian there's a lot of appeal to live there for a few years as a resident.
The people I've known in this category do something like this:
- Canadian Citizen
- Move to Dubai
- Trade crypto, make eight digit returns, liquidate funds
- Move back to Canada eventually without having had to pay tax on those funds
You can't do this as a US citizen without renouncing citizenship, but you can do this for most countries in the world (at least that's what people doing this have told me, I haven't looked into it that deeply myself).
It's more complex. If you just move to Dubai you will be considered a resident for tax purposes based on your links back to the Old Country. Examples of such links include if you own a property, have a bank account, have healthcare policies and registration, or if you are a member of a society or group. So, having links boils down to either owning a substantial asset back in Canada or continuing to being a part of day-to-day operations there.
This use to be popular with working at sea for 6 months to avoid taxes until it changed. You could be sailing around the world for the next two years any income you make would be taxable even if you renounce your citizenship (unless you take another citizenship or become a resident in a physical location)
So you could do this but for the effort you would be better off trading cryto from Canada avoiding popular exchanges and not reporting
My understanding was you could legally move to the UAE for a time as a Canadian citizen and do what I described.
It seems easy enough to not have day to day operations in Canada during that time. This seems like a way better option than tax evasion and prison imo.
If you are willing to completely cut ties. No bank account, no property, no memberships, no ties at all. Then you have to wait for a period of time. It won't be easy and they may retroactivity tax you.
If you got married had a family took another citizenship and lived for many years away your plan could work.
The easiest legally would be to set it up under a company and pay a much lower tax rate.
I don't think this is unique to Canadians. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the US the only country that makes you file your taxes in the home country no matter if you live abroad.
Not great company - though you have to escape Eritrea in the first place, they don’t allow young people to leave (coworker I used to work with escaped and would talk about what it was like).
In practice no way anyone living abroad pays taxes to Eritrea (and probably few would go back given the risks).
It isn't normal (at least in a democracy) for the local rulers to have that kind of control over businesses. "Jurisdictional" I presume means that they don't have an independent judiciary either. Those things matter quite a bit.
> It isn't normal (at least in a democracy) for the local rulers to have that kind of control over businesses.
Democracies are preventing businesses from operating in russia. What exactly makes democracies so special that it isn't beyond corruption or evil? People have said democracies don't commit genocide, democracies don't invade and steal territory, democracies don't enslave, etc. When the truth is that democracies have committed the greatest genocides, stolen the most land, committed the worst evils. I've yet to get a satisfactory response. Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected. It's like people are so brainwashed by propaganda that they can't see the truth.
> When the truth is that democracies have committed the greatest genocides, stolen the most land, committed the worst evils.
Yeah... re-read history without the biases, and you'll see that that is absolutely false.
> Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected.
Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality. (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
> Yeah... re-read history without the biases, and you'll see that that is absolutely false.
I have re-read history. Who has committed more genocides than the US? What non-democratic country has nuked a city? I don't think I'm the one with the bias here. Just in the post cold war era, almost all the invasions have been carried out by democracies.
> Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality.
Right. And who do you think controls the media in other democracies?
> (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
So ultimately, democracy gave us Putin? So democracies are bad.
Instead of just blindly accepting propaganda, maybe you should ask why the propaganda doesn't align with facts and reality. Perhaps, as socrates said, democracies are not good to begin with.
> Right. And who do you think controls the media in other democracies?
Nobody “controls” the media. Any clown can start a media company and many do, across the full spectrum of opinion. Media also has far less share of communications now anyway. Everyone can publish, as you are here. Go ahead, write what you want. I’m far more likely to be arrested in eg Russia than you are in eg US. Remember https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ ? That’s still up and nobody is in jail. Try post this a few times in Russia and see how that goes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra...
Just a few years ago we had Trump banning certain media outlets he disagreed with from the White House. Or the UK government attacking hard disks at the Guardian with an angle grinder. You could say that neither of these governments are “democratic”, but then it becomes somewhat of a no-true Scotsman argument. We have to accept that control of the media happens in democracies. It’s not as bad as in Russia, but it is an overt goal of many democratic governments, and many media outlets go along with it in the name of access.
He could ban it from while White House but not from your house. It’s not control like where you go to jail, it’s minor influence over very few selected places.
Every elite seems to want to cement their power and we have to combat it, always. But democracies in general don’t have “control” in any way recognisable to Russians, Chinese, North Koreans. In South Africa we had the most corrupt shit going on and the media drive politicians nuts. There’s some doublespeak and us/them but that’s just humans for you. In Russia those journalists would be dead or in exile. 30 years ago in SA we had some of that. Incomparable to political influence over media in a democracy, which is typically only over part of it. Not all.
Besides you don’t need to control the media. That’s far too much work. Just have an alternative that your tribe prefers. It seems you can make up any shit and a lot of people will take it as gospel.
Who controls the media in the US? Not the president. That's an improvement over Russia.
Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously? Imperial Spain. The Mongol Horde. The Muslim conquest of much of the near east. Imperial Japan. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. The Aztec Empire. That's with about two minutes' thought. If I were a historian or bothered to do research, I'm sure I could expand the list.
Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
> Who controls the media in the US? Not the president. That's an improvement over Russia.
Is it? The people who control the media also control the president. Don't think it is any better.
> Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously?
Yes. Show me one nation/empire that genocided an entire continent full of peoples. Completely wiped out dozens of peoples, cultures and languages. To a point where we don't even know the etymology and meanings of the names of a bunch of states, cities, etc.
> Imperial Spain.
Not even close. There are tens of millions of full blooded native americans all over spanish colonies. There are hardly any in the US.
> The Mongol Horde.
Who did the mongol horde genocide? The russians? Ukrainians?
> The Muslim conquest of much of the near east.
Who did the muslims genocide? Persians? Spanish?
> Imperial Japan.
Who did the imperial japanese genocide?
> Nazi Germany.
Are you claiming nazi germany committed more genocide than the US? They committed 1 genocide. Now compare that to the dozens of peoples we wiped out.
> That's with about two minutes' thought.
It shows. 2 minutes seems about right. There have been dozens of native american nations wiped out. Dozens of native languages wiped out. Dozens of native cultures. Show me another peoples who wiped out a continent full of nations. I'll wait.
> Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
Says the person who claims imperial japan committed more genocides than the US. Imperial Japan committed 0 genocides. US committed dozens. Are you going to claim imperial japan nuked more cities too?
It seems like you are confused about what the word genocide actually means. It doesn't mean conquering. It doesn't even mean killing a lot of people. It has a specific meaning which makes it one of the most evil acts in human history.
qiskit, it's silly to compare the situation in russia with the democratic world and see some equivalency. Russia kills the opponents of the leaders, they actively subvert opponents in the sense of killing them with poison, put them in prison, shoot them down in the night.
Not sure what yardstick of horrors matter to you, but the Soviets were definitely in the running for “winning” the trophy for most senseless murder in the 20th century — no small feat.
Do you know what I'm hoping for? I'm hoping for more natural, for more "organic" communities.
Walking around the residential areas of Chelsea or Knightsbridge I found it to be some of the most boring places in London. Beautiful houses and no one on the streets, pedestrian hostile roads, generally boring perfection.
I think optimising the city for the wealthy when these wealthy are not invested in the community kills the spirit of the city. London doesn't have particularly beautiful nature or weather, so if you make it about perfect streets and expensive buildings you can build something much better somewhere else. What London actually offers that is extremely valuable is a great culture and institutions and all these rich people who occupy a place in London without being in London are undermining it.
London has much more to offer than hiding the elites money, just as the Switzerland. These are advanced communities that has a lot of more going on for them beside accommodating the rich people of the world. The accumulated wealth in these places is not like the wealth in Silicon Valley, it is stale.
IMHO the dilution of the artificial wealth saturation will result in talented people having their impact amplified.
Yeah I agree absolutely. I find it quite amusing when people say “move out of London” and completely miss the whole of what West End has to offer at least.
I love the Maldives but if they become a haven to escape sanctions, it could be taken in a few hours, confiscate the yachts, then return Maldives to their government.
And before that, there was the highly picaresque story of Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking (and ensuing murder of American Jewish tourist Leon Klinghoffer). There are so many twists and turns in this story, involving diplomatic crises between the US, Italy, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various Palestinian groups that it beggars belief.
mole, a bad action is still a bad action. I'm in the us and I can admit that bombing endless wedding parties in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill terrorist is wrong. That doesn't excuse russia from bombing hospitals in Ukraine.
So, your takeaway from the whole Ukraine episode is that it's perfectly fine for large countries to invade small countries for utterly farcical reasons?
To restate your idea: You want to invade a country at peace, kill its citizens and overthrow its government just to inconvenience some rich thugs.
and by that logic all poor countries with rampant corruption should have legal protection if they attack Switzerland or any tax havens which do not share data. Off course, not possible in reality due to difference in the countries' powers. Ukraine has galvanized the Western world unlike any other event prior to it, however it is mostly because it is immediate, has visual impact and the impacted are similar in appearances.
an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation.
Is there something in the above definition that preculudes it from being used to refer to a genocide? And a more pertinent question: Was there a point to you comment apart from the feigned indignation?
What is life at those wealth numbers? Anywhere you go would be the same lifestyle. Granted you’d need to be a lot more underground in Dubai but I’m sure they can figure out how to get coke and high end escorts and hang out on boat off the gulf coast. Ditch all all the alcohol in the ocean and head back like a good Muslim, no questions asked.
Not at all, I suspect the more money you have the more you care about what your city has to offer. Restaurants, clubs, sporting events, galleries, museums, theater, society -- London has far more amusements for the wealthy than Dubai.
For a Russian Oligarch London offered a community where other Oligarchs, western elites could mingle. The galleries, museums of London's are impressive but Dubai has some of the finest galleries/museums/restaurants in the world. They offer a wealth of everything and much more like Swim Amongst Sharks at the Dubai Aquarium and other things banned in the western world.
Part of the eating at exclusive restaurants thing is to see and be seen in public doing the things people know to be exclusive. Private chefs don't quite do that.
In London there'd probably a bit of a drop in prices at the super lux end but life would go on as normal. The tax laundering stuff is a small percentage of the market except maybe in the £10m+ properties.
If money can't be explained it should be seized. The properties should be nationalised and then sold on auctions. Money should be used to rebuild Ukraine and legal assistance to get war criminals tried.
I doubt property values would really change unless we started talking about getting Chinese money out of London, because it's just a way bigger thing from all that I've seen.
I doubt much will change in London over the long term.
Johnson and his government are doing with the Ukraine/Russia issue what they have done on virtually every other topic: talk loudly and carry a very small stick. They have made some grand statements about punishing these oligarchs, while moving at a glacial pace, so as to allow these oligarchs to liquidate as much as possible and flee.
I think, once the war in Ukraine is over (please God that's soon), the next Tory government (it's always the Tories!) will simply revert to type, take money from the Russian oligarchs who still want access for their kids to schools such as Eton, Harrow, etc. and allow the laundering to continue.
As long as the Murdoch press continues to misinform the British public on these issues, Johnson and his Tory ilk will have enough air cover to continue allowing these oligarchs to finance their party (political), their parties (social), and further corrupt the entire political system (see "Lord Lebedev").
The assumption you’re making is that they soak up liberal values and not just lucrative training and connections. I’d be interested to see if anyone has compiled any evidence one way or the other, but at the very least we, in liberal democracies, should consider it an injustice to allow someone who has imprisoned and tortured their own citizens and pilfered their own country to use their ill-gotten gains to buy the most elite educations available. Spots not even within grasp of the vast majority of English or Americans in their own countries. I’m an American and I’d never even have a dream of attending an Ivy League, yet Xi Jinping’s daughter went to Harvard and Carrie Lam’s son is a postdoc at Stanford right now. Surely all these tyrants’ children aren’t the smartest, highest IQ students by coincidence, actually deserving of the spots. They’ve been able to buy their way in with blood money, and we should look at look at institutions that enable that with shame and disgust.
From my experience of easier European background living in London most of the kids who are indoctrinated will just stay in London completely cutting off their parents in the end. But they will not change that country for the better.
Having gone to school with a number of their “elite”. On the whole, They don’t integrate and are never indoctrinated into western values. They’re there for the education and london.
Nothing will substitute that well because these are prestige luxury goods. Xi wants to send his daughter to Harvard, not to a university in Moscow. Abramovich wants to sail in Europe, not China.
It was the case in the Soviet Union too that even though the West was the enemy, the status symbols were still all Western. In a weird way the elites aspired and lusted over the produce of Western consumerism.
So did the non elites, of what they were able to see, which is why such a large emphasis was put on concealing the wealth of the commoner westerner. Something that is still huge in China. If the average Chinese person learns that even the poorest of the western world doesn't live in 10sq meter "apartment" and work 9-9/6 the party would lose control.
Hundreds of thousands of Chinese international students have been coming to the US every year for the past decade. I'm sure they've seen homelessness as well as the middle class lifestyle in the US. So far so good
I doubt it. Anyone with any money or power in China already has a foot out the door, in almost all cases in a country with strong property rights and rule of law. Russian oligarchs won't find anything in China that they don't already have at home.
Highly doubtful. The last decade or so of CCP direction has been to control and punish the huge outflow of capital by rich Chinese into various western asset pools (like US and Canadian real estate) that are outside the party's reach. See also the recent controls on various cryptocurrencies. A lot of this got washed through Hong Kong and Taiwan and Singapore.
Nobody outside is going to want to secure their wealth there. If kleptocratic Russians wanted that sort of arrangement, they could just keep it in Russia.
There should be prisoners dilemma and therefore some country should emerge to fill this "market need"