Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Europeans remove Panama from black list, then place it again


2 years after the Council of the European Union removed Panama from its black list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes and a number of compliance laws were approved which destroyed the local casinos, keep hotels with high vacancy rates and lowered the price of real estate, the EU again has included Panama in its list.  These laws were imposed by the troika of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the EC- none of which grants Panama voting power on their decisions.

The list includes now:
American Samoa
Cayman Islands
Fiji
Guam
Oman
Palau
Panama
Samoa
Seychelles
Trinidad and Tobago
US Virgin Islands
Vanuatu

Ironically, it does not include Iran, Syria or North Korea which are known trade partners of several European countries despite sanctions set up by the U.S.  The EU claims this process is meant to establish tax good governance worldwide but fails to contribute any funds to the non-financial entities gathering information for the tax collection efforts they demand from black-listed countries.




  • Council of the EU
    •  
  • Press release
    •  
  • 18 February 2020
    •  
  • 10:32
    •  

Taxation: Council revises its EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions

The Council today adopted revised conclusions on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes.
In addition to the 8 jurisdictions that were already listed, the EU also decided to include the following jurisdictions in its list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions:
  • Cayman Islands;
  • Palau;
  • Panama;
  • Seychelles
These jurisdictions did not implement the tax reforms to which they had committed by the agreed deadline.
16 jurisdictions (Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cabo Verde, Cook Islands, Curaçao, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Nauru, Niue, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vietnam) managed to implement all the necessary reforms to comply with EU tax good governance principles ahead of the agreed deadline and are therefore removed from Annex II.



  •  Council of the EU
    •  

Economic and Financial Affairs Council, 18 February 2020

EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions

The Council today adopted revised conclusions on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes.


OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS
From: General Secretariat of the Council
To: Delegations
No. prev. doc.: 6050/20 FISC 61 ECOFIN 82
Subject: The Council conclusions on the revised EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes

Delegations will find in the Annex the Council conclusions on the revised EU list of noncooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, adopted by the Council at its meeting held on 18 February 2020

Council conclusions on the revised EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes

ANNEX I
The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes
7. Panama
Panama does not have a rating of at least “Largely Compliant” by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes for Exchange of Information on Request and has not resolved this issue yet.



Taxation: EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions

What is the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions?




COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on new requirements against tax avoidance in EU legislation governing in particular financing and investment operations

V. Aligning Implementing Partners' internal policies to new EU tax requirements

Identification of beneficial owners 
When reviewing the structure of an operation to determine potential issues in terms of tax governance, the Implementing Partners generally use a minimum threshold of ownership, direct or indirect, of the relevant entities, to determine the significance of the presence of an entity in the shareholding structure. In this context, further consideration should be given to the proper identification of who ultimately owns or controls the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the funds, i.e. the ultimate beneficial owners. Consistency with the customer due diligence requirements from the anti-money laundering directive (Directive 2015/84932) is considered good practice. In the case of legal entities or legal arrangements, reference should be made to the beneficial ownership definition stemming from Article 3(6) (a) (b) (c) of Directive 2015/849 which is set on internationally agreed standards. In particular, Implementing Partners should at least identify the natural persons having a controlling ownership interest in a legal entity by considering the indicative threshold of 25% direct or indirect ownership - or having control through other means (i.e. consideration of lower threshold and other means of control). The Commission recommends that this assessment should be made for corporate entities even below such 25% threshold and ideally aiming at a 10% minimum threshold. After having exhausted all possible means and provided there are no grounds for suspicion, Implementing Partners can consider the natural person holding the position of senior managing official as the beneficial owner. In any case, Implementing Partners should record the actions taken in order to identify the beneficial owner. Where there is a remaining risk of tax avoidance linked to the identification of ultimate beneficial owners, the Commission recommends that Implementing Partners perform tax avoidance checks on all relevant entities involved in the project, whereby the relevant entities are defined under section IV (1).




ST 15117 2018 INIT04-12-2018
Panama's Foreign Owned Call Centres (PA005) 
Final description and assessment

OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS
From: General Secretariat of the Council
To: Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)
Subject: Panama's Foreign Owned Call Centres (PA005) ‒ Final description and assessment

I/ STANDSTILL REVIEW PROCESS (DECEMBER 2017)
1 : a. Description
The Panamanian Call Centre Regulation Law (Law No. 54 of October 25, 2001) provides tax and other special economic zone benefits to call centres established in Panama by foreign investors. However, the special tax exemption is limited to foreign companies who have “commercial use” call centres based in Panama.

For telecommunications, Law 54 of 2001 offers Call Centres the same incentives granted to export processing zones by Law 25 of 1992. The most relevant incentives are similar to those granted to export processing zones:
- No income tax, sales tax, import duty or any other national taxes levied on call centres export operations;
- Special employee stability regime (three years);
- Market fluctuations as a justified cause for labour contract termination.

Any person exploiting call centre activities duly authorized by the Panamanian Authority of Public Services may benefit from the tax benefits granted to companies operating in ‘export processing zones’. Activities benefiting are those considered ‘export’ services (e.g. the final destination of telecommunication services provided used outside the Panamanian territory).

II/ ROLLBACK REVIEW PROCESS2 :

On 4 September 2018, Panama informed the Code of Conduct Group that the Parliament approved the draft law to reform the Call Centre regime to ensure compliance with EU Code of Conduct criteria. The Group agreed that the rollback is sufficient at its meeting of 21 September 2018: see analysis below of the legislation provided. The Panama Call Centres reform was signed into Law by Panama's President on 17 October 2018, and published in the Official Gazette two days later:

https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/28637_A/GacetaNo_28637a_20181019.pdf

Gateway criterion - Significantly lower level of taxation:
The general tax rate in Panama is 25%. However, pursuant to the new law adopted to regulate the activity of Call Centre for Commercial Use (Call Centres) a full tax exemption on CIT is granted to authorised call centres, although other special tax measures apply. Therefore, the measure provides for a significant lower level of taxation and deserves an assessment under the Code.

Criterion 1 – Targeting non-residents: The law adopted on 4 September 2018 does not distinguish between transactions with resident and non-resident in order for the tax reduction to be granted. For what concerns the de facto effects of the measure, the information provided by Panama on the use of the regime before the reform are only partial. Panama explained that more information could not be provided as it was not requested to companies under the previous regulation.

Criterion 2 – Ring-fencing: The law adopted on 4 September 2018 does not exclude residents from the scope of the beneficiaries of the preferential tax treatment.

Overall Assessment
In the light of the assessment made under all Code criteria, the regime is considered as overall not harmful.








Publicado por en No comments:
Etiquetas: ,

Friday, November 01, 2019

Corporate franchise tax in Panama


It may be a surprise to many but Panama is not a tax haven and even companies with no income earned locally must pay an annual tax known as Tasa Unica.  The tax and surcharges are described in Article 318-A in Wikisource and translated as draft as follows:


Article 318-A. [2] Corporations, limited liability companies and any other legal entities, national or foreign, will pay at the time of registration and in subsequent years a single annual fee of three hundred balboas (B / .300.00) to maintain full validity. Private interest foundations will pay at the time of registration a first single annual fee of three hundred and fifty Balboas (B / .350.00). In subsequent years, the payment for that concept will be four hundred balboas (B / .400.00) to maintain the full validity of the foundation. For legal purposes, full registration will be understood as valid in the Public Registry of Panama. The obligation to pay the annual single rate is not extended to non-profit organizations, cooperatives and civil societies.
     [3]The first annual single fee referred to in this article shall be paid at the time of registration of the legal entity together with the respective registration rights, as if it were part of the Registration Rights. Once the first single fee has been charged, the Public Registry of Panama will remit said amount to the General Directorate of Revenue on the first business day of the week following the date of its collection and will report the name and registration number of the respective company or foundation .
     The second and following annual single rates will be paid as follows:

to.Until July 15 of each year, by the legal person whose date of registration of the social pact or constitutive document in the Public Registry of Panama corresponds to the months from January to June, inclusive.
b.Until January 15 of each year, by the legal person whose date of registration of the social pact or constituent document in the Public Registry of Panama corresponds to the months from July to December, inclusive.
     These payments will be made through the legal representative or the registered agent or resident of the legal person.
     At the time of payment, the legal representative or registered or resident agent must declare the date on which the articles of incorporation or constitutive document has been registered in the Public Registry. This affidavit will be made in a form that, for this purpose, will be provided by the General Directorate of Revenue [4]
     Payment of this out-of-term fee will cause the single surcharge of fifty balboas (B / .50.00) per year or fraction of the year. For these purposes, the provisions of articles 1 and 2 of Law 60 of 1973 shall not apply .
     Taxpayers may pay this fee in advance, in which case such payment shall be deemed final for the periods covered.

Paragraph 1. [3] Failure to pay the fee in the period in which it is caused will have the effect of not registering any act, document or agreement and the non-issuance of certifications related to national and foreign legal persons, except ordered by competent authority or those requested by third parties for the specific purpose of enforcing their rights, in which case the certification will be issued exclusively in a different format for these purposes, indicating that it is in default.
Paragraph 2. [3] For the purposes of the suspension of registrations and the non-issuance of the certifications referred to in the preceding Paragraph, the General Directorate of the Public Registry of Panama will consult in each case the information made available to the Directorate General Income, on national and foreign legal persons who are up to date in the payment of the single rate.
Paragraph 3. [5] Each time the taxpayer incurrs in the non-payment of the annual single rate for two consecutive or alternate periods will have, in addition to the surcharge, the application of a fine of three hundred balboas (B / .300.00) and the annotation of a marginal indicating that it is in a state of delinquency. When the taxpayer pays the delinquent fees with their respective surcharges and the amount of the referred fine, the restoration of the services of the Public Registry of Panama and the lifting of the marginal entry will take place.
Paragraph 4. [3] Failure to pay the single rate for ten (10) consecutive periods will have the effect of definitive withdrawal of the legal entity from the Public Registry. As a consequence, it will be considered dissolved, with all the legal effects that this entails.
The natural or legal person, national or foreign, who has received from third money for the purpose of making the payments of this rate and does not enter them in favor of these to the National Treasury will be sanctioned with a fine not less than five (5) times nor greater than ten (10) times the amount not paid.

Paragraph 5. [3] Dissolved the legal person for non-payment of the annual fee for an uninterrupted period of ten (10) years, which will take effect from the entry into force of Law 6 of 2005, the period will begin of dissolution of three (3) years.
During that period any director, dignitary, member of the founding council, resident agent, partner or an interested creditor may carry out their rehabilitation, paying all amounts owed as a fee plus a fine of one thousand Balboas (B / .1,000.00). The rates of the expired years during the three-year dissolution period will be included in the payment.
Once rehabilitated, the legal entity will recover its existence and may resume its activities.
After the expiration of the three (3) year period indicated above without its rehabilitation having occurred, the Public Registry, after verifying that fact, will cancel the registration of the legal entity and its name may be used by any interested party.
The General Directorate of Revenue will prepare a list of legal persons with a delinquency of ten (10) years and promote their wide dissemination and publication, for the purpose of:

1. That the Public Registry write down the marginal dissolution for non-payment of a single rate.
2. That those interested can promote their rehabilitation.
Paragraph 6. [3] The annual single-rate payment obligations, declared until December 31, 1990, are declared prescribed, provided there is concurrence with the following facts:
to. That they have a prescribed prescription period exceeding fifteen (15) years or more.
b. That the taxpayer has not carried out or executed any own management of recognition of the obligation.
C. That the tax administration has not issued, at the date of entry into force of this Law, any suitable administrative act of interruption of the prescription.
In the event that a case of alleged prescription of the debt is declared or filed by mistake, it will be deemed interrupted, without prejudice to the administrative sanctions that are merited, and the period of its configuration will be restarted from the date of the alleged declaration or of your file if necessary.
Transitional Paragraph [3] Payments entered in official receipts are considered made by taxpayers, even if they had not been effectively entered into the National Treasury for reasons not attributable to the taxpayer, his legal representative or the resident agent. The collection of late payments and surcharges originated in the non-payment of the single rate to legal persons, whose delinquencies are attributable to the incorrect migration of data or inconsistencies in their update, and to those who verify, through receipts officers, have made the corresponding payments.
The increase in the amount of the second single rate onwards to three hundred balboas (B / .300.00) will be effective as of January 1, 2006.

Transitional Paragraph [6] For the purposes of the entry into force of the new single rates indicated in this article, as amended by Law 28 of 2012, corresponding to the annual renewals of private interest foundations, it will be understood that they govern from from January 1, 2013; that is, they take effect for those payments that correspond to the rates applicable to fiscal 2013 and subsequent periods.

References

  1. ↑ National Assembly (Panama) (June 29, 1956) [ Law 8 of January 27, 1956 ] by which the Fiscal Code of the Republic is approved. Official Gazette (12,995) p.127
  2. ↑ Article 318-A was modified by article 1 of Law 28 of 2012 , promulgated in Official Gazette 27029-C on May 8, 2012.
  3. ↑ Jump to:3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Article 318-A was modified by article 1 of Law 49 of 2009, promulgated in Official Gazette 26370-C on September 17, 2009.
  4. ↑ With Law 24 of 2013 , article 34 specifies that in any legal norm, document or ongoing process in which the General Directorate of Revenue is designated or formed, it will be understood as referring to the National Public Revenue Authority.
  5. ↑ As amended by article 1 of Law 28 of 2012 , promulgated in Official Gazette 27029-C on May 8, 2012.
  6. ↑ As it was with Law 52 of 2012.

Publicado por en No comments:
Etiquetas: ,

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

French court declares trust registry of beneficiaries as unconstitutional

While the French administration has declared that Panama is everything but a stain on civilization because of its privacy laws, its Constitutional Court - chaired by Laurent Fabius - has deemed the public registry of beneficiaries to be unconstitutional violation of rights enshriend in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.





Decision no. 2016-591 QPC of October 21, 2016

Ms. Helen S. [Public Registry of Trusts]
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL WAS ASKED TO DECIDE UPON a priority matter of constitutionality on 25 July 2016 by the Conseil d'État (decision no. 400913 of 22 July 2016), under the conditions set out in Article 61-1 of the Constitution. This matter was put forth for Ms. Helen S., by Stéphanie Auféril Esq., Marine Dupas Esq. and Stanislas Pannetier Esq., attorneys admitted to the Paris bar. It was recorded by the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Council under number 2016-591 QPC. It relates to compliance with the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees in the second paragraph of Article 1649 AB of the General Tax Code in its report from Law number 2013-1117 of 6 December 2013 relating to the fight against tax fraud and serious economic and financial crime.
In light of the following texts:
  • the Constitution;
  • Ordinance no. 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 as amended, concerning the basic law on the Constitutional Council;
  • the General Tax Code;
    -Law number 2013-1117 of 6 December 2013 relating to the fight against tax fraud and serious economic and financial crime;
  • The Regulation of 4 February 2010 on the procedure applicable before the Constitutional Council with respect to applications for priority preliminary rulings on the issue of constitutionality;
In light of the following items:
  • the observations made on behalf of the applicant by SCP Matuchansky-Poupot-Valdelievre, Attorney at the Conseil d'État and the Cour de Cassation, registered on 22 August 2016;
  • the observations of the Prime Minister, registered on 22 August 2016;
  • the documents produced and appended to the case file;
Having heard Olivier Matuchansky Esq., attorney at the Conseil d'État and the Cour de cassation, and Ms. Auféril Esq. for the applicant, and Mr. Xavier Pottier, appointed by the Prime Minister, at the public hearing of 11 October 2016;
And having heard the Rapporteur;
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED ON THE FOLLOWING:
  1. The second paragraph of Article 1649 AB of the General Tax Code, in its report from Law number 2013-1117 of 6 December 2013 mentioned herein above, states: "A Public Registry of Trusts has been instituted. It mandatorily lists the trusts registered, the name of the administrator, the name of the settlor, the name of the beneficiaries and the date the trust was formed".
  2. The applicant claims that these provisions fail to take into account the law in regard to private life and are tarnished by incompetence under the conditions of this right insofar as they allow the public free and unrestricted access to confidential information related to the composition of a trust. These provisions also fail to take into account the principle of equality before the law.
  • On the merits:
  1. The freedom proclaimed by Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen implies the right to respect for private life; Owing to this, collecting, recording, keeping, consulting and communicating information of a personal nature shall be justified by general interest and implemented in an adequate and proportional manner.
  2. The Public Registry of Trusts instituted by the second paragraph of Article 1649 AB of the General Tax Code identifies all trusts, under Article 792-0 bis of this Code, and declaring them is made obligatory by the first and fifth paragraphs of this Article. These are trusts which the administrator, the settlor, or at least one of the beneficiaries has its fiscal domicile in France or which include a good or a right located here. For each trust, the registry includes the date the trust was formed as well as the name of the administrator, the settlor, and its beneficiaries. The fourth paragraph of Article 1649 AB refers to a decree in the Conseil d'État and the right to specify the means to consult this Public Registry.
  3. By these disputed provisions, through emphasising transparency of the trusts, the legislature intended to prohibit their use for the purpose of tax evasion and money laundering. It also sought the objectives enshrined in the constitution of the fight against fraud and tax evasion.
  4. Listing, in a registry accessible to the public, the names of the settlor, the beneficiaries and the administrator of a trust provides information on the manner in which a person intends to manage his or her estate. The result is an infringement on the right of respect for private life. However, the legislature, which did not specify the quality nor the motives that justify consulting the registry, did not limit the people that have access to the information in this registry, placed under the responsibility of the tax administration. Therefore, these disputed provisions have a clearly disproportionate effect on the right of respect for private life in regard to the objectives sought. As a result, without reviewing other grievances, the second paragraph of Article 1649 AB of the General Tax Code should be declared counter to the Constitution.
  • On the Effects of the Ruling of Unconstitutionality:
  1. According to the second paragraph of Article 62 of the Constitution: “A provision declared unconstitutional on the basis of Article 61-1 is revoked as from the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Council or at a later date stipulated in the decision. The Constitutional Council determines the conditions and the limits according to which the effects produced by the provision shall be liable to be challenged". In principle, the declaration of unconstitutionality should benefit the individual who brought up this priority matter, and the provision declared unconstitutional may not be applied in proceedings pending on the date of publication of the decision of the Constitutional Council. However, the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution provide the latter with the power to set the date of repeal and to delay its effects in time and to reconsider the effects that the provision may produce before this declaration takes effect.
  2. In this case, no motive should justify a delay of its effects of unconstitutionality. This should take effect from the date of the publication of this decision.
HELD:
Article 1. - The second paragraph of Article 1649 AB of the General Tax Code in its report from Law number 2013-1117 of 6 December 2013 relating to the fight against tax fraud and serious economic and financial crime is unconstitutional.
Article 2. - The declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 1 shall take effect under the conditions set out in paragraph 8 of this decision.
Article 3. - This decision shall be published in the Journal officiel of the French Republic and notified in the conditions provided for in Section 23-11 of the Ordinance of 7 November 1958 referred to hereinabove.




Publicado por en No comments:
Etiquetas: ,

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Europe Can't Get a Grip On Its Dirty Money, but Panama is Always to Blame


After reading the newspapers of International Consortium of Journalists, one would have the impression that Panama is the main launderer of the world.  However, funds of the transactions described in the Panama Papers story rarely used Panama banks and they are dwarfed by the trillions already being laundered in the European Union by its banks.




Europe Can't Get a Grip On Its Dirty Money

Though regulators are getting tougher, European banks are still too willing to overlook suspicious transactions by dodgy clients.
By 


As another top Scandinavian bank faces money-laundering accusations, it’s clear that the rules are changing for European lenders under intense U.S. pressure. A closer scrutiny of clients with links to the former Soviet Union and other high-corruption regions is fast becoming a necessity. Though the motives behind the pressure can be questioned, the outcome is mostly positive for Europe. Its role as a haven for dirty money hasn’t fit its declared values well.
Helsinki-based Nordea Bank Abp, Scandinavia’s biggest bank, has been accused of laundering money for shell companies registered in Estonia and Lithuania and holding accounts with the notorious Estonian branch of Danske Bank A/S and Lithuania-based Ukio Bank. If this proves true, Nordea will be dragged into a laundering scandal that has rocked Danske. So will the Lithuanian banking system, which has so far skirted the kind of trouble suffered by its neighbors, Estonia and especially Latvia, caused by nefarious non-resident activities in their banking systems.
The accuser, Bill Browder, is a controversial figure. An investor who made a fortune in Russia and an early booster of President Vladimir Putin, he lost his Russian business to what he describes as a massive tax scam by well-connected officials. A Browder associate, Sergey Magnitsky, died in prison after trying to investigate it. Browder has since branded himself Putin’s “Enemy Number One” and lobbied successfully in multiple countries for the passage of “Magnitsky laws” sanctioning foreign human rights violators. His latest campaign involves tracking Russian dirty money, and he has played an important role in the Danske scandal.
Browder’s Russian experience and his singular focus on the Putin regime’s wrongdoing make him well-qualified for the job of revealing dodgy financial flows from Russia. But his example shows that, with a little determination, regulators could find out much more by themselves about money laundering, and not just by Russian actors. They know where to look, too.
In recent years, but especially in 2018, Europe has seen a growing number of high-profile money laundering cases involving banks. The most notable were listed in a report published by the ratings agency S&P on Tuesday, which points out that while laundering problems aren’t unique to Europe, the continent’s banks are “over-represented in such cases.” 
This year alone, Netherlands-based ING Bank agreed to pay $900 million to settle a Dutch probe into facilitating apparent bribes from a telecoms company with Russian roots to a government official in Uzbekistan; France’s Societe Generale SA was forced to pay $585 million after a French-U.S. probe into a Libyan bribery scheme; Pilatus Bank in Malta had its assets frozen for running a U.S. sanctions-busting scheme with Venezuela and Iran; in Estonia, Versobank, owned by secretive Ukrainian tycoon Vadim Ermolaev, was closed down overnight for providing laundry services to various post-Soviet players; in Latvia, ABLV was shut down after the U.S. cracked down on suspicious non-resident activities; and, again in the Netherlands, Rabobank paid $369 million for its role in hiding Mexican drug cartels’ cash. Then there’s Danske.
While the cases appear diverse and unrelated, there are three similarities most of them share. All of the banks except Societe Generale operate in countries that actively participate in tax competition and make it relatively easy for non-residents to do offshore business. In every case, the problem clients come from countries with high corruption. In most cases, U.S. involvement has played a critical role in policing the banks.
The latter isn’t necessarily a good thing. Extraterritorial U.S. sanctions are a naked power play that enjoys little support in Europe, as evidenced by recent EU efforts to save the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. U.S.-Russia tensions also contribute to the heightened American attention to Russian transactions, an atmosphere that benefits Browder’s anti-Putin campaign. But Europe does have a lot to learn from the U.S. when it comes to tracking down suspicious transactions and making it impossible for banks to escape punishment.
The S&P report notes that Europe is learning, noting the success of the Dutch probe into ING and the German financial regulator’s appointment of an external auditor to supervise Deutsche Bank AG’s progress in fixing its anti-money laundering controls. In the Danske case, too, the national regulator appears to be on the ball.
That’s a start. Europe shouldn’t just bow to U.S. demands when fighting dirty money. If the EU wants to occupy the moral high ground given up by the U.S. during the Trump presidency, it cannot allow the European economy to serve as a comfortable destination for dirty money – whether post-Soviet, African or Latin American – as it has done for decades. This explains the recent European anti-money laundering push. It includes a  directive passed earlier this year that enhanced controls over digital currencies and other anonymous forms of payment and called for a united database of companies and their beneficial owners. The EU has also called for more powers in using supranational agencies to fight money-laundering, overcoming the reluctance of national regulators in the more offshore-friendly countries.
The current high-profile probes and fines won’t stop money-laundering, though. As long as shell companies can be set up – the S&P report singled out U.K.-registered limited liability partnerships as “a key conduit for financial crime” – the financial infrastructure will remain, if only in the shape of small banks that can fly under the radar. But a concerted effort to look in all the obvious places could shrink the dirty money flows considerably.

Publicado por en No comments:
Etiquetas: ,

Friday, August 17, 2018

Canadian brokers are not in Panama


The Nova Scotia Securities Commission in Canada issued an alert for a firm advertising in 1sttradeoptions.com :

Investor Alert for 1st Trade Options/First Trade Options

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

May 2, 2018 10:07 AM
The Nova Scotia Securities Commission is alerting investors that 1st Trade Options/First Trade Options is not registered to sell securities in Nova Scotia.

1st Trade Options claims to be a full-service options trading company located in Panama City, Panama. 1st Trade Options and its representatives solicited at least one Nova Scotia resident by telephone to invest. The investor lost money as a result. It also advertises on its website, https://www.1sttradeoptions.com/ . 
 If you have been contacted by a representative from First Trade Options, please contact the commission.

-30-

Media Contact: David Harrison
              902-424-8586
              Email: david.harrison@novascotia.ca
https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20180502002

No company is registered in the Panama Public Registry, the Panamaemprende Business Registry or the Securities Commission with the name 1st Trade Options or similar.  A report mentions that the outfit has a Panama office at 1st floor Commercial Area of Oceania Business Plaza (which office staff have never seen them) and telephone +5078389514 (which has recording as disconnected).  Another report states that they have a payout company in San Jose Costa Rica international optional Investments (which address is that of a convent https://yellow.place/it/monasterio-san-jos%C3%A9-madres-carmelitas-descalzas-barrio-los-laureles-escaz%C3%BA-costarica )

The Panama Superintendent of Securities has a list of regulated brokerage firms serving locals and foreigners alike in http://www.supervalores.gob.pa/iper-smv/informacion-de-personas-juridicas-o-entes-regulados.   Some of the firms are more than 50 years old and the best ones are supported by banks with paid-in capital above $10 million.   A prospective investor should consult local experts before investing.

Canadian and Panamanian citizens can resolve investment disputes under the protection of the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement of 2009.

More information in:
FTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Panama_Free_Trade_Agreement
1st Trade Options http://trader.help/question/1sttradeoptions/ https://www.biedex.nl/nssc-warns-against-cold-calling-firm-first-trade-options-tradebuddy-online-financial-news-trade-the-markets-now/   https://thebestbinaryoptionsbrokers.net/1st-trade-options-is-not-regulated-warning 






Publicado por en No comments:

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Apartment in residential zone of Panama City with easy access

7400 - San Francisco, Panama City - The Location

 San Francisco is truly the best area to live in Panama City. It is a peaceful area, surrounded by
beautiful houses of impressive architecture, an inimitable exclusive and residential zone, close to the ocean but in the center of the city, which allows you to enjoy an incredible view of the ocean or of the city. Everything you need you will find close by: restaurants, schools, supermarkets, video rental stores, pharmacies and just a few streets away, one of the biggest shopping malls of Central America boasting stores selling international brands, at terrific prices, movie theaters and more. San Francisco is also one of the most accessible zones of the city, so it will only take a few minutes to arrive at your destination.

Maintenance fee includes: Maintenance of common areas, 24/7 security, broadband internet, gas.

7400 - San Francisco, Panama City - Key Features
  •  Prime Panama City Location
  •  Close to airport, Panama Canal and Bay of Panama (Pacific Ocean) etc.
  •  Family-owned developer with 35 years experience
  •  20 year exoneration from property tax
  •  Prices from just $270,000 based upon current availability
  •  Anticipated rental yield of 7-8%
  •  15% capital gains tax rate
  •  70-80% borrowing available


LA EXPERIENCIA QUE BUSCABAS PARA VIVIR A TU ESTILO! UBICACION: San Francisco es realmente el mejor lugar para vivir en la Ciudad de Panamá un área tranquila rodeada de hermosas residencias con una impresionante arquitectura una zona exclusiva y residencial por excelencia muy cerca del mar pero en el centro de la ciudad lo que le permite disfrutar de una vista increíble al mar o a la ciudad. Con todo lo que usted necesita cerca del área encontrará: restaurantes escuelas supermercados video clubes farmacias y a pocas calles centros comerciales cines y más.

EL PROYECTO: Con un estilo fresco moderno y relajado 7400 San Francisco encuentras las imponentes East Tower y West Tower. Estarás cautivado por su impresionante fachada con un estilo totalmente original ambas con elegantes lobbies entradas individuales desde sus múltiples vías de acceso y un diseño arquitectónico vanguardista que te hará sentir la experiencia 7400 desde el primer instante.

AMENIDADES: 7400 San Francisco te permitirá disfrutar a diario sin que te cueste más y sin salir de tu entorno 2400mts2. de amenidades como media cancha de basketball cancha de raquetball y áreas verdes para practicar deportes al aire libre.para relajarte cada día te espera un delicioso spa con sauna duchas completas y para ejercitarte un moderno gimnasio completamente equipadoun lujo que tienes con solo tomar la decisión inteligente de vivir en 7400 San Francisco. Cada torre cuenta con su propia área de esparcimiento para chicos y grandes con piscina área de juegos para niños terraza techada terraza abierta y una completa área social con salón de fiestas con cocina área para barbacoa terrazas baños y más para que celebres con toda comodidad y sorprendas a tus invitados.

LOS APARTAMENTOS: WEST TOWER con apartamentos de 153m es ideal para tu estilo de vida porque cada elemento en tu apartamento ha sido seleccionado pensando en que sea único e individual para que cada rincón tenga su propia personalidad y a la vez puedas adaptarlo a tu gusto. Acabados modernos y de buen gusto materiales importados de España de excelente calidad y que siguen las últimas tendencias en decoración: una hermosa cocina con sobre de granito y modulares estilo italiano elegantes baños con sobres de mármol modernos y lustrosos pisos de porcelanato de 60cms azulejos importados ventanas de piso a techo detalles que hemos incorporado para tí porque son parte del concepto 7400 San Francisco.

For more information contact by Whatsapp +5076617321


Publicado por en No comments:
Etiquetas: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)