The Pandora Papers

west didsblue said:
Do you think Blair’s transaction was corrupt then?
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to be, but it does appear to be "unfair" and is the sort of deal he was talking about when he called out the unfairness of there being a two-tier system for those with expensive lawyers and accountants etc.

Although most people don't purchase commercial property of that kind of value to use as offices.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
That it isn't corrupt because no laws were broken.
Click to expand...
The idea that no laws have been broken is just stupid and naive. These revelations don't disclose crimes, they disclose potentially how entire crime enterprises are legally financed.

If a mafia boss launders his money via property and a legal offshore company then does that make his mafia enterprise legal? It absolutely doesn't however the fact he gets away with the offshore technicality is precisely why he does it. There's no reason to move offshore unless you're hiding something that is otherwise criminal here.

A lot on here will be chomping at the bit about tax avoiders but that honestly is the mildest thing to be found. We are talking here of the offshore money pots of some of the most bankrupt and corrupt in society, think the Pablo Escobars of this world.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Last night you claimed it was only Blair at fault - I said then Tories will soon surface - we are only at the beginning of the revelations - you keep sticking up for them
Click to expand...
Eh ? You started the thread, presumably without any research. You were so confident that Tories would be named. You even accused the Mail of making up a story to deflect from it.
The only political name to be outed is the War Criminal, has a Conservative, Liberal green thingy been named yet ?
 
inbetween said:
The idea that no laws have been broken is just stupid and naive. These revelations don't disclose crimes, they disclose potentially how entire crime enterprises are legally financed.

If a mafia boss launders his money via property and a legal offshore company then does that make his mafia enterprise legal? It absolutely doesn't however the fact he gets away with the offshore technicality is precisely why he does it. There's no reason to move offshore unless you're hiding something that is otherwise criminal here.

A lot on here will be chomping at the bit about tax avoiders but that honestly is the mildest thing to be found. We are talking here of the offshore money pots of some of the most bankrupt and corrupt in society, think the Pablo Escobars of this world.
Click to expand...

as well as the crims there will be plenty of foreign heads of state who are laundering money through property in London - in doing so some may be also evading tax in their own countries depending on the rules there. This is something the Tories have repeatedly refused to properly investigate
 
west didsblue said:
Where did he break the law?
He bought a company registered abroad that owned a UK property.
It might not have good optics but it doesn't make him corrupt unless laws were broken.
Click to expand...
I meant he is corrupt not because of this deal, everything he does, before and after this deal. The man has the blood of thousands on his hands.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
That’s not really true though is it?

Plenty of governments around the world who might be classified as corrupt have laws drafted in such a way that their corrupt dealings falls outside criminal sanctions.

It doesn't really look like a shady deal though because the office building they bought was already owned by an overseas company, they didn't insist on the deal be structured in such a way, and it was brought into UK tax regime following the transfer.

There might have been other reasons why they might jave wanted to acquire the holding comapny as a going concern before dissolving it into their own company. Contracts for maintenance and security etc may have been kept, rather than void them and renegotiate new terms.
Click to expand...
So of all the buildings that were available this was the only one that was deemed good enough for what it was required for, ergh offices. Right got you.
 
Blue Mist said:
Eh ? You started the thread, presumably without any research. You were so confident that Tories would be named. You even accused the Mail of making up a story to deflect from it.
The only political name to be outed is the War Criminal, has a Conservative, Liberal green thingy been named yet ?
Click to expand...

I was confident coz it was dirty money and wherever that is you'll find Tories. As yet no Ministers named but 3 large donors to them from abroad have been found - its a lot to go through but they will get there. As for Blair they ran out of Labour names to find at that point it seems and what he did was both wrong but long after he was involved in Politics. These donations of suspect money are now - whilst the Tories are in Govt. Do you think its ok for Tories to accept large donations from people who may be laundering money?

www.bbc.co.uk

Pandora Papers: Questions over Tory donations by ex-Russian minister's wife

Documents reveal the scale of the secret offshore financial wealth she shares with her husband.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Blue Mist said:
Who me ? I didn't claim anything. Media investigators named the war criminal and he has accepted he did not pay stamp duty by using an offshore company.

He has not offered to pay it back.
Click to expand...

He wasn't the last Labour PM though was he?
 
Blue Mist said:
Who me ? I didn't claim anything. Media investigators named the war criminal and he has accepted he did not pay stamp duty by using an offshore company.

He has not offered to pay it back.
Click to expand...
Pay what back?
He bought all the shares in an overseas company and that didn’t incur UK stamp duty.
 
I see we are at the ‘but, but, BLAIR!’ stage of the argument.

Man stopped being PM nearly 15 years ago, and he is still far more competent then any of the arseholes that followed him.

And I didn’t even vote for the guy.
 
Blue Mist said:
So of all the buildings that were available this was the only one that was deemed good enough for what it was required for, ergh offices. Right got you.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but there are only so many buildings like that around Marylebone and Mayfair. They set up a UK company to purchase it and take it under UK tax regime, so whilst the loophole remains it is a less desirable asset for any potential buyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top