tax justice focus · tax justice focus the quarterly newsletter of the second quarter 2006 volume 2...

TAX JUSTICE FOCUSthe quarterly newsletter of the

second quarter 2006 volume 2 number 2

Letter from the USA 3

The tax sins of PrimeMinister Thaksin 4

Enron: why the convictionswere important 5

Corruption and the role oftax havens 7

The UK Government andcorruption 8

A code of conduct for banks 9

Capital flight and tax evasionas corruption 10

Reviews and new research 11

Campaigns and TJN news 13

Calendar 14

Editor: Jenny Kimmisemail: [email protected] by the Tax Justice NetworkInternational Secretariat Ltd© Tax Justice Network 2006For free circulationISSN 1746-7691

Corruption issueMoney laundering and political corruptionin Marbella, Gibraltar and LiechtensteinIn April the Spanish government took the unprecedented step of dissolving the towncouncil in Marbella. The town’s mayor and several officials, lawyers and businessmenare implicated in a multi-million euro corruption scandal. Juan Hdez.Vigueras ex-plains how this mafia-style activity in the Costa del Sol is part of a web of corruptionlinked to tax havens.

In March 2005 Operation BallenaBlanca (White Whale), a police op-

eration to combat the laundering ofprofits from drug trafficking, concludedwith several arrests and the seizure ofproperty in the resort town of Marbellain southern Spain. Just one year later,political corruption uncovered there bythe recently set up Anti-Fraud Officeforced the Zapatero government todissolve Marbella’s town council. Acaretaker administration will run thetown until the next local elections.

Operation Ballena BlancaOperation Ballena Blanca, the largestpolice operation against the launderingof drug money that Europe had seen

(according to Spanish newspaper El País),exposed a mafia-style web of more thanone thousand shell companies, linked toreal estate investments and tax exemptstatus companies in Gibraltar. Thesewere linked to other companies acrossSpain as well as in the United States andCanada. Some of the companies involvedwere linked with the troubled oil firmYukos, which belongs to the Gibraltar-based Group Menatep.

Just a few details from the case givesome idea of its scale and importance. Aswell as the seizure of 251 houses andhundreds of millions of euros in bankaccounts, several planes and 42 luxurycars (Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Porsche…),

the judge running the operation prose-cuted several lawyers and three notariesaccused of various crimes includingmoney laundering and falsifying publicdocuments.

For the first time in Spain’s history, nota-ries – a profession that has long enjoyeda privileged position in society – werearrested and prosecuted. Notaries, likelawyers, are legally obliged to inform theauthorities of any suspicions they haveregarding money laundering. But in 2002only 12 such reports were submitted andby 2004 the figure had fallen to just six,according to the SEPBLAC Report.

Despite being public officials, notaries

SECOND QUARTER 2006 volume 2 number 2 TAX JUSTICE FOCUS

2

legally earn their fees directly from pri-vate and corporate clients. In real estatetransactions in Spain, it is fairly commonpractice for notaries to record a lowerprice than actually paid by the buyer inorder to reduce the amount of tax due.The Zapatero government has tried todo away with this practice, but with in-sufficiently tough measures.

Marbella council dissolvedIn April 2006 fraud investigations led tothe arrest of Marbella’s mayor MarisolYagüe along with several town council-lors and one high-ranking council official,Juan Roca, who had accumulated a for-tune estimated at tens of millions of eu-ros. The media has reported Roca’sflashy display of wealth to include a Mirópainting hanging in the bathroom of oneof his homes, helicopters, thoroughbredhorses and numerous properties. Ac-cording to published information, thisamassed fortune was largely the productof commissions (kickbacks) Roca earnedfrom granting building licenses for landofficially protected from development.

For years the regional government ofAndalucia had been trying to put an endto the corrupt practices in Marbella. For15 years the town was governed by asmall ‘independent’ right-wing party, theGIL (Grupo Independiente Liberal). TheGIL’s late leader, Jesús Gil, who enjoyedthe support of sheikhs, the Russian mafiaand the international jet set, was con-victed for financial offences involving hispresidency of football club Atlético Ma-drid.

But with the latest scandals, Marbella’sresidents had had enough. At the end of

March, about 10,000 people turned outonto the town’s streets to protestagainst corruption. In April, following thearrest of Marbella’s mayor together withseveral town officials, the Zapatero gov-ernment ordered the town council to bedissolved and put a caretaker administra-tion in to run the town until the nextlocal elections in the middle of 2007.

Corruption and offshoreMany of the activities uncovered duringthe recent investigations have shownhow political corruption and moneylaundering are intimately linked. Andwhile corruption and money launderingknow no borders, democratic govern-ments are constrained by nationalboundaries. Three issues in particularhave been highlighted:

committed to co-operate with theOECD to end harmful tax practices by2005. Yet in 2005, Gibraltar reachedagreement with the newly appointedEuropean Commission for the continua-tion of the exempt status company untilit gets phased out at the end of 2010.This despite the fact that the existenceof this regime violates EU competitionpolicy (the state aid rule).

The identification of the real owners ofGibraltar-based companies is also com-plicated because the law allows for thedirector of a company to be not only aperson but also another company(corporate director) which could, inturn, be registered in another tax haven.So more than one year on from the end

• These days, political corruption stem-ming from financial crime always has aninternational dimension.• Money laundering and corruption al-ways appear to be linked with one ormore tax havens (mainly Gibraltar in thecase of Marbella).•The globalisation of financial marketshas left some – albeit limited – space fornation states to act. But even citizenpressure does not appear to be enoughto convince national governments totake sufficiently tough measures.

According to police information, a lawfirm in Marbella arranged the incorpora-tion and registration of tax-exemptstatus companies in Gibraltar with nomi-nee directors included. In 2001, Gibraltar

Beautiful laundrette? Gibraltar town where much of the Costa del Sol’s dirty money gets ‘washed’. Photo: Jenny Fowler


3

of Operation Ballena Blanca, the judicialinvestigations to determine those re-sponsible are obstructed by lack of co-operation.

Tangled web of corruptionRecent news reports hint at the extentof political wrongdoing in Marbella overthe last few years, with lawyers and fi-nanciers with connections in Liechten-stein owning local real estate businesses.The Spanish newspaper El Mundo claimedthat British multi-millionaire and Marbellaresident and landowner Judah Binstock(who has been the subject of a publicprosecutor’s office investigation) man-aged a vote of no confidence against theprevious mayor of Marbella, Julian Muñoz(who has also been investigated), in or-der to protect his interests. The oustingof Muñoz gave way for the election ofthe now-disgraced Yagüe. Binstockcounted among his acquaintances thelawyer Engelbert Schreiber, who wasaccused by the USA of laundering al-Qaeda money in Liechtenstein where hehas his office.

Juan Hdez. Vigueras is the author of the368 page book Los Paraísos Fiscales: Cómolos centros offshore socavan las democracias.(Tax Havens: how offshore centres underminedemocracy).

[email protected]

www.attac.org.es

Over the last few months, Capital-ism’s Achilles Heel has taken me all

over the United States as well as to Eng-land and Europe. I thought I’d hit thejackpot when, driving in the Midwest, Isaw a roadside advertisement that said,“Oil Leases for Sale.” Imagine my disap-pointment with the phone number—1800 DRY HOLE. Earlier in the South-west, my attention was riveted when Isaw an official highway sign cautioning,“State penitentiary 10 miles ahead. Donot pick up hitchhikers!” I knew I was inBush country at my first speaking en-gagement in Texas. A gentleman askedme, “How do we convince our youngpeople that everything the United Statesis doing around the world is right?” Witha very long pause and a deadly seriouscountenance, I replied, “That’s . . a . .really . . tough . . question.”

I spoke mainly to foreign policy organisa-tions, business groups, and students. Theforeign policy types clearly understoodmy message and reacted extraordinarilywell. Business groups were generallysympathetic. One person in San Fran-cisco tried unsuccessfully to put up aspirited argument for the status quo.Some undergraduates had a bit of diffi-culty grasping the issues, but graduateschool and law students got the pointsquickly.

Letter from the USARaymond Baker has been on a thirty-city tour with his book on illicit money andcorruption. Here he shares some of his experiences.

Every audience was stunned by the loop-holes in US anti-money laundering law.While it is illegal to bring into the UnitedStates proceeds generated abroad fromdrugs, corruption, and terrorism, it islegal to bring in the proceeds of racket-eering, handling stolen property, coun-terfeiting, contraband, slave trading, aliensmuggling, trafficking in women, environ-mental crimes, tax evasion, and more. Inmy book, the first tipping point I call foris closing these loopholes in US law. InMarch of this year, Senator CharlesGrassley (R-Iowa) Chairman of the Sen-ate Finance Committee and an endorseron the back of my book, submitted a billthat would shut down every one of theseholes, making foreign proceeds subjectto exactly the same restrictions as do-mestic proceeds.

Two years ago my colleague JenniferNordin predicted that the messages con-tained in Capitalism’s Achilles Heel wouldlikely resonate better in Europe than inthe United States. After several talks andmedia appearances in London and on theContinent, I would say that this provedcorrect. The highlight of all my experi-ences was a speech and Q&A at theRoyal Society of Arts in London, chairedby Lord Daniel Brennan, head of theCaux Round Table of global businessleaders. With a lengthy format, I includedcomments on the way we have per-

verted the original underpinnings of capi-talism laid out by Adam Smith and em-braced instead the “greatest good forthe greatest number” espoused by Jer-emy Bentham. Encouragingly, no onerose to Bentham’s defence. Perhaps capi-talism is ready to bury the gross distor-tions of recent decades and move into amore just future. At least that’s whatkeeps many of us thinking, working, hop-ing.

Raymond Baker is the author ofCapitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money andHow to Renew the Free-Market System. He isa Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institu-tion and a Senior Fellow at the Center forInternational Policy.


4

The tax sins of Prime MinisterThaksinEarlier this year thousands of Thai people took to the streets accusing Prime MinisterThaksin of corruption anddemanding his resignation. In April he was forced to dissolve parliament. Chanida Chanyapate and Alec Bamfordunravel the complex story of Thailand’s political crisis, showing how Thaksin and his family abused their positionfor personal gain.

Ruangkrai Leekitwattana was once anofficial in Thailand’s Office of the

Auditor-General (OAG). And he noticedsomething fishy about share transactionsamong members of Thai Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra’s family.

Thaksin’s share dealings had already beenin the limelight when he became PrimeMinister in 2001 and his declaration ofassets was challenged by the NationalCounter Corruption Commission. Theycharged that he had hidden assets bytransferring huge blocks of shares in hisfamily’s corporate empire to his maid,driver and gardener (who made thatyear’s list of top Thai share owners).Thaksin escaped punishment after a bi-zarre ruling by the constitutional court:seven voted guilty, four not guilty andfour said “I don’t think we should behearing this case”.

Shin Corp: a family affairThaksin was Thailand’s richest manthrough his Shin Corporation stable ofcompanies dealing in mobile phones, sat-ellites and property. He and his wife,Pojaman, had repeatedly given shares, or‘sold’ them at below-market prices, totheir children and other family members,many of whom were office holders intheir companies.

The share transaction that Ruangkrai hadspotted was 4.5 million Shin shares,originally belonging to Pojaman. In 2002they were transferred as a ‘gift’ from theThaksin family’s maid to Pojaman’sadopted brother, Bhanapot Damapong.(Bhanapot later acquired another 26.82million shares at a book value of 10 baht(US25c) apiece direct from Pojaman asanother ‘gift’.) Section 40(4) of the TaxCode says that the buyer in such casesincurs no profit until the shares are laterre-sold. Tax becomes payable only then.Phaitoon Phongkesorn, Deputy DirectorGeneral of the Revenue Department,was adamant in claiming that there wasno tax to be paid on these transactions,since they were a ‘wedding present’ fromone sibling to another. Except that Bhan-apot had been married for years.

Ruangkrai left the OAG and took a jobas an accountant with the Bangkok Ex-pressway Company. He got his dad tobuy some shares and then ‘gift’ them tohim at 10 baht per share when the mar-ket price was 21 baht. He was duly billedby the Revenue Department for 21,000baht (US$525) tax on capital gains hehadn’t yet realised.

A quick word here on taxation of sharesin Thailand. As a measure to promoteinvestment, individuals (but not corpora-

tions) are exempt from tax on capitalgains from share sales on the exchange.Deals made outside the exchange, suchas the ‘gifts’ we are looking at, are notexempt, nor are dividends or other in-come from shares. Stock options to ex-ecutives, directors, employees or advis-ers are also taxable. Note that this doesnot promote the efficient allocation ofcapital but rather a casino mentality thatchurns shares in the hope of quick gains.

Ruangkrai took his case to the SenateAnti-Corruption Committee. Thereseemed to be a clear case of discrimina-tion. The Senate agreed and demandedthat the Revenue Department bill Bhan-apot for 47 billion baht (US$117.7m) intax. The Department agreed that thecases were equivalent, but instead choseto give Ruangkrai his 21,000 baht back.Since Ruangkrai had asked the RevenueDepartment to tax Banaphot rather thanreturn his tax payment, this became thefirst time in history that the RevenueDepartment had repaid a taxpayer with-out the taxpayer asking for the money.

As a Department official commented atthe time, every case is unique. And someare clearly more unique than others.

Ample RichBhanapot eventually sold his Shin shareson 23 January this year as part of what isknown in Thailand as the Deal of theCentury. The Shinwatra-Damapong fam-ily sold all their Shin shares, amountingto 49 per cent of the corporation’s capi-tal, to Temasek, a holding company con-trolled by the Singaporean governmentand run by Ho Ching, the wife of Singa-porean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The family earned 73.4 billion baht onthe deal (US$1.8 billion). And paid notax. Bhanapot walked away with about19.9 billion baht (US$0.5 billion), but thebiggest beneficiaries were Thaksin’s son,Panthongtae and eldest daughter, Pin-thongta. Since they were selling sharesthat had previously been gifted to them,common sense, and most Thais, reck-oned they were now liable for the taxthey escaped when they acquired theshares. Not so, declared the tax collec-tors. Since the shares had been sold onthe stock exchange by individuals, theywere exempt from capital gains tax.

The outcry was loud and strong. TheFinance Minster was accused of acting asthe Prime Minister’s personal tax advi-sor. This was in fact quite unnecessarysince he had already engaged the coun-


5

try’s top tax expert, Suvarn Valaisathien,who had concocted a complex web ofdeals involving an offshore holding com-pany with the splendid name of AmpleRich, registered in the British Virgin Is-lands. With the help of Suvarn’s‘explanations’, the trail quickly becameso tangled that the finest legal minds inthe country were hard pressed to figureout who had done what and with whatand to whom. The Securities and Ex-change Commission eventually foundThaksin’s son guilty of minor infractionsof disclosure rules and fined him six mil-lion baht (US$150,000).

And there, as far as the compliant au-thorities are concerned, the matterrests. But reality is much richer.

Protests force a generalelectionThe huge tax break earned by the Shi-nawatra family sparked street proteststhat culminated in Thaksin calling a snapgeneral election on April 2. This was sobadly mismanaged by the Election Com-mission of Thailand in favour of Thaksin’sparty that the courts eventually annulledthe results. The Election Commissionerswere the subject of court suits, pressurefrom the palace and daily vituperationfrom the media. In the middle of this, theembattled chief Commissioner decidedto take a holiday in Australia. The pressgot hold of the passenger list. Sitting inthe next seat, both there and back, wasPhaitoon, the Deputy DG of the Reve-nue Department who had been so vehe-ment in defending Thaksin’s tax-freestatus. A complete coincidence, claimedboth parties.

But there is a happy ending. Among themany questionable shenanigans of theThaksin administration, one was to find,two years after the fact, a minor irregu-larity in the appointment of JaruvanMaintaka as Auditor General. In thosetwo years she had been getting far toointerested in corruption in the construc-tion of Bangkok’s new airport. She wassuspended, but she carried on. Her paywas stopped, but she carried on. Eventu-ally they changed the locks on her officeand chose her successor. But thisneeded Royal approval, which wasn’tforthcoming. Eventually, they gave up andJaruvan was allowed back in her office.One of her first acts was to offerRuangkrai his old job back.

Chanida Chanyapate is a senior associatewith Focus on the Global South in Bang-kok. Alec Bamford is a writer and develop-ment activist based in Bangkok.

[email protected]

www.focusweb.org

Enron - why the convictionswere importantIn May, a jury inTexas found two former chief executivesof bankrupt energy corporation Enron guilty on severalcounts of fraud and conspiracy. Richard Murphy looks atwhat this means for corporate governance and arguesfor tougher measures to curb offshore.

The financial world heaved a collec-tive sigh of relief when Kenneth Lay

and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty forinvolvement in the downfall of Enron.The charges ranged from conspiracy andfraud, to making false statements andinsider trading in the case of Skillingalone. But it is important to see whythere was such relief, and where thingsmove from here.

It would have been disastrous for thedevelopment of corporate governance ifthe two had been found not guilty. TheSarbanes Oxley structure put in placesince Enron would have been provenunnecessary, and far too many peoplehave too much invested in that systemfor a not guilty verdict to have been any-thing but a disaster. So, a serious setbackwas avoided by these convictions, eventhough ultimately these systems will notstop those determined to commit fraud.

More importantly, though, the trial was abenchmark. Senior executives were heldto account for their actions and werefound to be responsible for them. Thatwas vital. Anything otherwise would have

sent out all the wrong signals.

More than that though, the trial was byjury. Lay and Skilling were not foundguilty by a professional body or a regula-tory board hearing; they were foundguilty in a criminal court. And despite thecomplexity of the numerous charges andthe length of the trial, the jury was askedto determine guilt on the basis of a sim-ple test – did the defendants know thattheir actions were wrong? That is not atechnical test. It is an ethical test. Andthe jury convicted on that basis.

This is an important victory for two rea-sons. In some countries there has beenan over-emphasis on basing fraud andcorporate malfeasance cases on the basisof technical evidence. This has alloweddefendants’ lawyers the opportunity topresent technical defences, extended thelength (and cost) of trials, and led toclaims that juries cannot understandthese issues. The Enron case provides auseful lesson. The jury were, of course,presented with evidence of wrongdoingin breach of the law. That is essential tosecure a conviction. But by including


6

conspiracy charges it was possible to askquestions about Lay’s and Skilling’s moti-vation and intention in undertaking thosetransactions i.e. did they intend to breakthe law? By doing this the issue becamecomprehensible, because technicalities,whilst still significant, are of much lowerimportance. This also reduces the pros-pect of a successful appeal on the basisof a technicality.

It is this test that I find most importantabout the Enron trial. It seems to saytechnical compliance with the law is notenough to act as a defence: you musthave been actively seeking to complywith it as well. And of course, that iswhat we have argued for some time inthe area of tax. It is good to see it beingreflected in this case.

So where next? That’s hard to say, unlessyou are Lay or Skilling as I expect themto spend some time in prison. My guessis this. First, this case will reinvigoratethe shockwaves driving enhanced compli-ance in the USA. The convictions willremind those in Europe who argue forlower states of regulatory checking thatthose processes are put in place for apurpose. And rather like the impact ofthe collapse of Andersen and the fineson KPMG and trial of KPMG partners,this will act as a sharp warning to thoseconsidering wrongdoing.

But will that be enough to change theculture of the corporate world so thatsuch practices cease? Sadly, I doubt it.Change does not come from the fear ofprosecution, it comes from the beliefthat good practices produce better out-comes. As yet not enough has been done

The scandal that culminated in the trial of Lay and Skilling has its roots in the suspectfinancial and accounting methods Enron had been using for years. During the 1990sEnron became a byword for innovative financing strategies. In 2000 Enron’s shareprice hit an all-time high and, by the time of its collapse, the company was the sev-enth largest in the USA. But it later came to light that Enron had used offshore spe-cial purpose vehicles to borrow huge sums of money through derivatives deals, tohide millions of dollars of the company’s debt and to vastly inflate profits. Here ishow the scandal unfolded:

Enron: a failure of corporate governanceto stop people believing that offshore,secrecy and tax avoidance pay. Until thatis changed another Enron is inevitable,no matter how much regulation is inplace, and offshore will remain a cancerin the corporate world as it was at En-ron.

So the prosecution is welcome. Achanged attitude to offshore from thosegovernments that continue to tolerate it,including the USA, would be even morewelcome.

Richard Murphy is Director of Tax Re-search LLP.

www.taxresearch.org.uk

October 2001 Enron reports huge losses and writes down share-holders’ equity by US$1.2 billion.

The US securities and exchange commission begins afraud investigation and the price of Enron’s sharesdrops dramatically.

December 2001 Enron files for bankruptcy.Enron employees lose their jobs and life savings andthousands more are affected through pension plansholding Enron shares.

July 2002 The Sarbanes-Oxley bill is introduced in the USA inresponse to corporate scandals such as Enron and UStelecoms company Worldcom. The new law intro-duces tighter regulation and enhanced disclosure forpublicly-owned companies.

August 2002 Former Enron auditor Arthur Anderson surrendersits license to practice in the USA.

January 2004 Former Enron finance chief Andrew Fastow pleadsguilty and testifies that former chief executives Ken-neth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling had encouraged him tocommit fraud.

May 2006 Lay and Skilling are convicted of conspiracy and fraud.Sentencing will take place in September 2006.


7

Corruption and the role of tax havensCorruption is a global problem and it has risen in scale in recent decades. But our perceptions of corruption arelargely shaped by Northern attitudes and media, and have consequently been distorted to fit an agenda which isinsulting and harmful to the South, writes John Christensen.

Transparency International has playeda lead role in shaping the global

campaign to counter corruption and hashighlighted the huge cost to business ofdoing business in countries where bribetaking is regarded as the norm. Africa inparticular has come under the Transpar-ency International spotlight, accountingfor almost half of the bottom 20 per centof the TI 2005 Corruption PerceptionsIndex (CPI). Famously, Chad, a smallland-bound state which has recentlyjoined the ranks of the hydrocarbon ex-porting economies, was ranked as themost corrupt country in 2005. Nigeriaheld that illustrious position for manyyears, but now comes sixth from thebottom, scoring a mere 1.9 on an indexwhich ranges between 10 (highly clean)to 0 (highly corrupt). Small wonder thenthat US and European politicians feelentitled to lecture African leaders on theneed to get their house in order. Butbefore doing this they should turn thespotlight through 180 degrees and take acloser look at the other end of the cor-ruption spectrum.

Only one African country, Botswana, isranked amongst the least corrupt 20 per

cent of the CPI for 2005. Almost all theremainder are OECD states. And 40per cent of the countries ranked as leastcorrupt according to Transparency Inter-national’s vision of the world are taxhavens, including major centres such asSingapore (ranked 5 th overall), Switzer-land (7th), United Kingdom (11th), Luxem-bourg (13th), Hong Kong (15th), USA(17th), and Belgium and Ireland (jointly19th). For good measure Barbados andMalta, both tax havens, rank 24th and 25th

respectively. Iceland, also a tax haventhough only a minor player, ranked asleast corrupt country in 2005.

In focussing on the ‘demand side’ of‘petty’ corruption, i.e. the extortion ofbribes by public officials, as the main indi-cator of corruption, TI has played a keyrole in distorting public perceptions ofcorruption thereby reinforcing negativeimages of Africa whilst distracting fromthe higher level corruption of majorcompanies and governments from theNorth. This is not to downplay theharm caused to Africa by bribery, but thesteady growth of petty corruption inrecent decades has at least in part beendriven by IMF and World Bank condi-

tionality which pegs civil service salariesat an arbitrary percentage of wholly in-adequate government budgets. How-ever, as Raymond Baker has so convinc-ingly demonstrated in Capitalism’s AchillesHeel, bribery represents only around 10per cent of the massive dirty money flowout of developing countries, with pro-ceeds of crime and illicit commercialtransactions being of far greater impor-tance. By widening the definition ofcorruption to include embezzlement,larceny and crimes involving illicit com-mercial transactions used for facilitatingcapital flight and tax evasion, we gain afar more complete picture of corruptpractices in action, and of the impor-tance of the ‘supply side’ in encouragingand facilitating global corruption.

According to the recently published re-port of the Africa All Party ParliamentaryGroup (AAPPG) of the UK government,the supply side covers both the personsand institutions offering the bribes, and –crucially – the financial systems whichlaunder the proceeds of corruption.Companies from the industrialised coun-tries have been guilty of offering bribesto secure contracts and special treat-

ments, including tax incentives, and fre-quently this happens even when bribeshave not been solicited. But more im-portantly, international banks and otherfinancial intermediaries have played thekey role in establishing and maintainingthe offshore financial systems which en-able dirty money to flow from South toNorth with relative ease and impunity.According to Baker, illicit commercialtransactions involving mispricing, abusivetransfer pricing, and fake transactions,account for approximately 65 per cent ofcross border dirty money flows originat-ing from developing and transitionaleconomies. In the case of Africa:

“As much as 60% of trade transac-tions into or out of Africa are es-timated to be mispriced by an av-erage of 11%, which translatesinto annual capital flight in excessof $10 billion. Fake transactionsare estimated to account for afurther $150-200 billion.”Tax Justice Network in written evi-dence to the AAPPG, quoting fromCapitalism’s Achilles Heel (2005).

The vast majority of this illicit trade islaundered via tax havens linked to the


8

international banking system, and it gen-erally remains offshore to be managed bythe plethora of banking businesses(largely from the North) offering wealthmanagement services to their high net-worth clients. With 2005 seeing recordgrowth in the numbers of people in Af-rica and Latin America with liquid assetsexceeding US$1 million, largely on theback of surging commodity prices, it isnot surprising that the offshore financialservices industry turns a blind eye towhat the AAPPG report describes as‘rampant kleptomania’.

Like many who have studied corruptionin Africa, I have concluded that the prob-lem is largely stimulated by the supplyside. The ease with which proceeds ofcrime and illicit commercial activities canbe laundered into secret bank accountsand offshore companies owned by off-shore trusts inevitably encourages crimi-nal behaviour and protects it from inves-tigation. Working with corporate inves-tigators and journalists covering majorcrimes in Africa and elsewhere in theSouth, I have noted how investigationshave almost invariably led to accountsheld in Switzerland, Luxembourg, theBritish Crown Dependencies, the Cay-man or similar tax havens. This is typi-cally where the investigations haveended, because, despite all the interna-tional conventions put in place in recentyears, these offshore territories do notcooperate with legitimate investigationsand refuse to publicly disclose even basic

information about ownership or basicfinancial accounts. This determination toprotect secrecy, even in the light of mas-sive evidence of abuse, suggests thatwestern governments are still not seri-ous about wanting to remedy endemiccorruption, despite ample evidence of itsinevitably harmful social and economicconsequences. As one witness told theParliamentary Group during the courseof its enquiry:

“With one hand, the West haspointed the finger at corrupt Afri-can leaders, with its other hand,its bankers, lawyers, accountants,art dealers, health authorities,universities, estate agents and em-bassies have been actively or pas-sively encouraging wealth out ofAfrica into the West’s econo-mies.”Dr Patrick Darling in written evi-dence to the AAPPG.

The Other Side of the Coin: the UK and Cor-ruption in Africa, AAPPG, March 2006, avail-able online at:

www.africaappg.org.uk

The UK Government and corruptionJohn Christensen

T he UK Government response tothe report on corruption by the

Africa All Party Parliamentary Group,The Other Side of the Coin, was generallypositive but failed to adequately addressthe concerns expressed to the Group byTJN representatives.

On the plus side the Government ap-pointed Hilary Benn, Secretary of Statefor International Development to tackleinternational corruption and coordinatepolicy coherence across UK Govern-ment departments. The Governmentalso committed to working with interna-tional partners to establish a review ofinternational safeguards against trademispricing and capital flight, but fell shortof making explicit commitments to TJN’sproposal to introduce mandatory price-related signatures from buyers and sell-ers for all cross-border transactions ex-ceeding approximately €15,500(£10,000) in value.

The Government committed to estab-lishing a police task force to focus onbribery and money laundering issues.Details of exact lines of responsibility willnot be published until later this year, butit is likely that the Economic and Special-ist Crimes Unit of London’s Metropoli-

tan force will focus on money launderingissues.

On the minus side, however, in reply tothe AAPPG’s proposal for disclosure ofbeneficial ownership of companies, theGovernment claimed that any require-ment to disclose beneficial ownership“would be legislatively impractical andimpossible to enforce”, but would beineffective in combating corruption“since criminals would either not dis-close their identity or ensure they didnot own, directly or indirectly, the shellcompanies they were controlling.” Thisresponse is wholly inadequate and sug-gests that the UK Government remainscommitted to supporting the tax evasionindustry which operates at the core ofthe City of London.

John Christensen directs the TJN Interna-tional Secretariat.

[email protected]

The full text of the Government’s re-sponse to the AAPPG report is availableon the news section of the TJN website:www.taxjustice.net


9

A code of conduct for banksTJN believes a code of conduct for banks is urgently needed. Lucy Komisar proposes some initial ideas on what thiscode might look like and invites feedback from TJF readers.

International banks are the institutionsthat facilitate the global tax evasion

system. Most of the subsidiaries in theworld’s tax havens are not run by fly-by-night operators that nobody’s ever heardof. Those shifty ‘shady folks in sunnyplaces’. Sure, there are some of those.But most offshore banks are the subsidi-aries of the world’s major ‘reputable’financial institutions, directed by the fel-lows who wear Armani suits and areaccepted in the best of company.

The Tax Justice Network agreed at itsMay meeting in Athens to establishcodes of conduct for banks and compa-nies that should be adopted internation-ally. Here is a suggestion of what wemight consider when we draw up thecode for banks. Readers are invited tocomment and add their own ideas sothat we can come up with standards onwhich to campaign.

The heart of the matter, of course, is theoffshore bank and corporate secrecysystem. That’s where banks hide themoney of tax evaders, drug and armstraffickers, dictators, terrorists, corruptofficials, corporate fraudsters and thelike.

So, we make these demands. Some ofthem are based on the fact that‘offshore’, in the day of computers andinternet, is often a convenient fiction.Accounts ‘exist’ wherever the banks saythey exist, even if the actual managementis handled by staff sitting in offices inHong Kong, Frankfurt, Paris, London orNew York.

Banks must abjure offshore secrecy bymaking account information in all theirlocations available to law enforcers andcivil court plaintiffs seeking informationfor criminal or civil cases. If offshore ven-ues protest that this violates the law, thebanks must contest the rulings and, if

necessary, close those offshore subsidi-aries.

Banks must not use subsidiaries in off-shore secrecy jurisdictions as registriesor booking vehicles for transactions ar-ranged and managed from onshore.

Onshore staff must not manage (bycomputer or otherwise) accounts regis-tered offshore and then tell law enforc-ers, civil complainants or other legitimateinvestigators that the records are off-shore and not accessible.

Banks must not open correspondentaccounts for banks that operate underoffshore secrecy rules.

Banks must stop advertising and pro-motions aimed at wealthy clients that uselanguage about ‘tax planning’ or othereuphemisms to sell tax evasion.

Banks must not advise or help clientsmove their money into accounts abroad,through private banks or other specialservices, for the purpose of evadingtaxes. They should supply to home coun-tries information about the accounts ofthose countries’ residents set up abroad.

Banks must not set up shell companiesfor clients that do not have real func-tions other than the secret movement ofmoney. They must not sell ready-to-go

‘off the shelf’ companies for immediateuse for such purposes. They must notset up companies whose owners arekept secret from law enforcement orcivil plaintiffs. They must not supply theirown staff as sham directors for offshorecompanies.

Banks must never register accounts orcompanies in false names, straw men orthe names of the owner’s lawyer, ac-countant or other representative. Theymust print and mail regular statementsto the owners of all accounts to theirhomes countries. They must not engagein surreptitious behaviour to help clientshide their banking activities from homeauthorities.

Banks must not engage in ‘structuredfinance’ when that is a euphemism fordeceiving investors and the public abouta client’s financial situation or when it isused to enable a company to evadetaxes.

Banks must not set up shell companiesthat are used as facades to engage infraudulent operations or otherwise‘cook the books’ as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase did for Enron in order togive Enron loans disguised as profits.

Onshore staff must not manage (bycomputer or otherwise) accounts regis-tered offshore and then fail to allocate

Photo: Paul Jackson


10

the profits to the real places of manage-ment. They must declare profits wherethey are earned, that is, where accountsare actually handled. They must not usetransfer pricing or ‘head office fees’ tomove profits to lower tax jurisdictions.

Banks must not engage in business theonly purpose of which is to reduce theirtaxes in some jurisdictions.

Banks must not keep double account-ing systems that allow profits to be allo-cated to subsidiaries or individuals with-out that appearing on the official booksof the banks in their home countries.

Banks must maintain transparencyabout their own taxes by making thempublic. This would include pre-tax prof-its, levels of current and deferred tax,opening and closing tax liabilities, andpayment of different types of tax includ-ing on ‘capital’ and ‘people.’

The key to banks’ behaviour must betransparency, public accountability and adecisive rejection of tax evasion.

Lucy Komisar is a New York basedinvestigative journalist.

Comments and suggestions on thecode of conduct for banks are welcome.

Please send to:[email protected]

Capital flight and tax evasion as corruptionThe International Financial Institutions should include capital flight and tax evasion intheir definition of corruption and the IMF should focus on these issues, argues DavidSpencer.

An investor, an individual or a com-pany resident in country A, makes a

bank deposit or other interest bearinginvestment in country B. Country B is inmany cases an onshore financial centreor an offshore financial centre. CountryB does not tax the investor on the in-come on such investment. Further, coun-try B has bank secrecy or other confi-dentiality laws, which means that it isunlikely that country B will inform coun-try A of the investor’s investment incountry B.

What is the likely result? The investordoes not declare to the tax authorities incountry A, his/her/its country of resi-dence, the income on the investment incountry B. That is capital flight, and taxevasion in country A by the investor.

Capital flight and the resulting tax eva-sion is corruption, both private sectorcorruption and public sector corruption.

It is private sector corruption by theinvestor who evades taxes in country A,his/her/its country of residence. The in-vestor is illegally diverting for his/her/itsprivate use, funds, tax revenue, that be-long to the public sector in country A.

But it is also public sector corruption bythe government in country B. This isbecause the government in country B

provides bank secrecy and other confi-dential treatment which it knows facili-tates capital flight from other countriesand tax evasion in those other countries(country A). Governments in onshoreand offshore financial centres providebank secrecy and other confidentialitytreatment, knowing that because of thatbank secrecy and other confidentialitylaws, foreign persons (individuals andcompanies) will make investments inthose financial centres, and not declarethose investments in their countries ofresidence. In effect, the governments ofthose onshore and offshore financial cen-tres are knowingly facilitating and en-couraging capital flight and tax evasion,that is, knowingly facilitating corruption.

In March 2005, the Tax Justice Networkpublished a briefing paper, The Price ofOffshore, which estimated that theamount of funds held by individuals inoffshore and onshore tax havens, andundeclared in the country of residence,is approximately US$11.5 trillion. Thisestimates capital flight from all countries,and not only capital flight from develop-ing countries. The briefing paper alsoestimated that the annual income onthese assets, and the tax revenue lost onthe undeclared and untaxed funds, couldbe approximately US$860 billion andUS$255 billion, respectively. The latterfigure approximates the annual funds

needed under the UN’s Millennium De-velopment Goals.

Corruption has become a major issue.

Transparency International initiated andspearheaded the campaign against cor-ruption and for transparency. PublishWhat You Pay and the Extractive Indus-tries Transparency Initiative have focusedon the extractive industries, arguing forgreater transparency, in order to brake,and break, corruptive practices with re-gard to payments to governments withextractive industries. The World Bankand the International Monetary Fund(IMF) have joined the process, con-cerned about corruption in World Bankand IMF projects and programmes, andin general. And in December 2005, theUnited Nations Convention Against Cor-ruption (UN Convention) came intoforce. The UN Convention does notexplicitly define corruption, but doesrefer to both public sector corruptionand private sector corruption, (Articles12,13, and 21-24), the laundering of pro-ceeds of crime and concealment.

On February 18, 2006 representatives ofthe African Development Bank, theAsian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Euro-pean Investment Bank, the EuropeanBank for Reconstruction and Develop-


11

ment, the IMF and the World Bank(International Financial Institutions)“reached an unprecedented consensuson the broad polices and practices nec-essary to address both internal and ex-ternal problems of corruption:”

“The leaders agreed on the needto standardize their definition ofcorruption, to improve the consis-tency of their investigative rulesand procedures, to strengtheninformation sharing, and to assurecompliance and enforcement ac-tions taken by one institution aresupported by all others. The lead-ers established a task force toreport to them bi-monthly onprogress made to develop a uni-form Framework for Preventingand Combating Fraud and Corrup-tion with the goal of concluding anagreement by the September An-nual Meetings of the World BankGroup and the IMF.

“The leaders also agreed to worktogether to develop concrete pro-posals to assist countries over thelonger term in strengthening theircapacity to combat corruption andto improve cooperation with civilsociety and other stakeholdersand institutions such as the pressand judiciary with the goal to en-hance transparency and account-ability”.Heads of MDBs Joint Statement onCorruption.Washington DC. February 18, 2006

In their efforts against corruption, theInternational Financial Institutions should

include in the definition of corruption,capital flight and the resulting tax eva-sion, and should confront this issue. TheIMF has the primary responsibility ofmonitoring and surveillance of interna-tional financial centres (both onshoreand offshore). Therefore, the IMF shouldfocus on this aspect of corruption.

David Spencer is a practicing attorney inNew York, specialising in tax law andbanking law.

Reviews and new research

Gaétan BretonFaire payer les pauvres: Élémentspour une Fiscalité Progressiste(Let the Poor Pay: Elements of aProgressive Fiscal System)Lux Éditeur, 2005

As you may gather from the title, FairePayer les Pauvres deals with the erosionof the progressivity of income tax in theProvince of Québec and in Canada gen-erally.

Gaétan Breton, a professor of accountingat the Université du Québec à Montréal,describes the process as gradual, startingafter World War II and accelerating inthe 1980s. As in other OECD countries,this has been done through the reduc-tion of the number of tax brackets, anincrease in the rates paid by middle- andlower-income wage earners, a reductionof the rates paid by the rich, and a shiftof the tax burden from corporations toindividual salaried taxpayers. In parallelto the decreased progressivity of theincome tax structure, the State has in-creasingly come to rely on regressivetaxes as a revenue source.

The author describes the ideologicalbackground driving the transformation ofthe fiscal systems, which includes the

promotion of inequality as a means ofincreasing productivity and scare tacticsinvolving a distorted depiction of publicdebt. In addition to his description of theways in which the Canadian and Quebectax regimes have been perverted so asto make the less affluent pay for the run-ning of the government apparatus, forthe remnants of social programmes, andfor the gifts to the business communityby way of subsidies and low interestloans (some of which never get to bereimbursed), the author also deals withthe other ways in which the poor andthe lower-middle class get to pay for theresulting accumulation of wealth by thefew.

Breton’s treatment of the fiscal issues isinformed by his awareness of the dis-torted accounting underpinnings of thegross national product (GNP), of thefailure of markets to treat natural re-sources as finite, and of the omission inthe GNP of activities which are notpriced – while including destruction,waste and the costs of remedying disas-ters as integral components of the GNP.But the main thrust of the book is fiscaljustice, emphasizing the social implica-tions of taxation and the need for a taxsystem to be fair and structured and im-plemented so as to redistribute wealth.


12

A guaranteed minimum income schemedoes not attract universal support fromall progressives, but Gaétan Bretonmakes a good case for it. He also favoursa generally more active socio-economicrole for the state.

Raymond Favreau

United States. And where the UnitedStates leads others are sure to follow. LeRoy’s core arguments about the role oftax competition in reducing public wel-fare apply equally to other continents,not least Europe, where corrupt porkbarrel politics also favours the rich at thetaxpayer’s expense.

John Christensen

Greg Le RoyThe Great American Jobs Scam:Corporate tax dodging and themyth of job creationBerrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005

The Tax Dodgers Are Coming!The Tax Dodgers Are Coming!

Fans of Catch-22 will recall Major Major’sfather as “a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom loving, law-abiding rug-ged individualist who held that federal aidto anyone but farmers’ was creeping so-cialism”. Well US variant socialism hasshifted a long, long way since JosephHeller wrote this in 1955, and welfarefor big business has become a prominentfeature of the US economy. The corpo-rate subsidy system is now so embed-ded, and so deeply distortive of the freemarket system, that it largely boils downto an upside down welfare state gearedto further enriching the rich at the ex-pense of middle- and lower-income earn-ers.

According to Le Roy’s research almostevery large US corporation has receivedtax breaks and subsidies to create jobs.In many cases the jobs already existed,or would have been created anyway, orsomehow were simply not created eventhough subsidies were paid. On averageUS states grant more than 30 subsidies,including property tax abatements, salesand excise duty exemptions, low interest

loans, loan guarantees, training grants,income tax credits, and so on and soforth. Subsidy packages routinely exceedUS$100,000 for every job created, di-verting public funds away from invest-ment in education and infrastructurewhich would probably create more vi-able jobs in the longer term.

Subsidies are big business in themselves.US$50 billion a year is disbursed througha variety of public offices, spawning amirror industry of consultants to adviseon how to apply for subsidies; how tosubsidy shop by playing one state offagainst another; and even how to buyand sell economic development tax cred-its.

And what benefits do the public derivefrom all this jiggery-pokery? Little ornone is the answer. Whilst states com-pete blindly against one another to at-tract capital, real wages have stagnatedor fallen, healthcare has become lessaffordable, pensions have shrunk in valueand public infrastructure has drasticallydeteriorated. All in the name of a cor-rupted version of competition which pitsstate against state in a wholly unproduc-tive race to the bottom.

Founder and director of Good Jobs First(www.goodjobsfirst.org), Greg Le Royhas authored a witty critique of the eco-nomics of corporate welfarism in the


13

Campaigns and TJN newsRaising the TJN profile

During the second quarter of 2006 TJNrepresentatives held meetings with avariety of inter-governmental organisa-tions and the Bretton Woods Institu-tions to introduce the Network and es-tablish working relationships.

In April, John Christensen and RichardMurphy met with Michel Aujean and histeam from the DG Tax and CustomsUnion of the European Commission todiscuss the Savings Tax Directive andconcerns about the tax policies of theBritish Crown Dependencies. Later thatmonth John Christensen took part in apanel discussion at an ECOSOC sideevent organised by the Friedrich EbertStiftung in New York.

Speaking alongside John Williamson(Institute for International Economics)and Ricardo Ffrench-Davis (ECLAC),John proposed a variety of measures totackle poverty by curbing capital flightand tax evasion. TJN was subsequentlyinvited by the ECOSOC Secretariat toorganise a side event at the forthcomingSubstantive Session which is being held inJuly in Geneva.

Athens meetings marks nextsteps for TJNJohn Christensen

Three years after its launch, TJN tooktwo major steps forward at the annualCouncil and Open Meetings held in Ath-ens in early May. First, after 18 monthsof consultation and discussion, the Coun-cil adopted a new Constitution to reflectthe Network’s increasingly globalisedscope and activities. Second, participantsat the Open Meeting agreed to support ashift from the past emphasis upon net-work building towards giving equal prior-ity to high-level advocacy work, this shiftbeing reflected in the formation of teamsto focus on the major international finan-

cial institutions and inter-governmentalorganisations.

The new TJN Constitution adopted bythe TJN annual Council Meeting in Ath-ens on 2 May 2006, is based upon theformation of a Belgian registered Interna-tional Not For Profit Association(International Association Sans But Lu-cratif) which is now in the process ofbeing registered with the Belgian authori-ties. The Constitution lays out the ac-countability structure for the global net-work, placing overall power in the TaxJustice Council, and outlines the role,composition and powers of the Interna-tional Steering Committees, the Board ofDirectors and the Scientific Council.

After agreeing the English, Dutch andFrench versions of the new Constitution,the Council ratified the membership ofthe Founder Members of the new Asso-ciation and elected Sven Giegold, Fran-çois Gobbe and Bruno Gurtner to serveas interim Board Directors pending finalratification of the Constitution by theBelgian Authorities. A permanent Boardof Directors will be elected at the 2007Council Meeting scheduled to be held inNairobi, Kenya, in January 2007. The fulltext of the TJN Constitution and theMinutes of the Council Meeting in Ath-ens, are available for download from thehomepage of the TJN website(www.taxjustice.net).

The purpose of the Open Meeting inAthens was to review overall strategy ofthe Network at the international leveland to agree strategic objectives for thenext 18 months. After reviewing pro-gress on major projects in hand, includ-

ing preparations for the launch of TaxJustice for Africa in 2007, the Meetingdiscussed priorities under four principalheadings: network building, advocacy,campaign work and research.

Until this year network building has beengiven highest priority, but the consensusview of the Meeting was that TJN hasgained sufficient critical mass to be ableto devote more resource to high leveladvocacy work. On the proposal ofBruno Gurtner, the Meeting agreed tocreate specialised teams including senioradvisers to TJN, which will focus on thefollowing institutions (team contacts inbrackets):

• UN ECOSOC Committee of Expertson International Cooperation in TaxMatters (TJN contact: David Spencer)

• International Monetary Fund (TJN con-tact: TJN-USA Secretariat)

• World Bank (TJN contact: TJN-USASecretariat)• OECD (TJN contact: Bruno Gurtner)

• European Commission (TJN contact:International Secretariat)

• The South Centre (TJN contact: Inter-national Secretariat)

Meetings have been held with all of theseinstitutions during the past six monthsand TJN is already widely recognised asrepresentative of civil society’s interestsin tax policy matters relating to harmfultax practices.

The Minutes of the Open Meeting inAthens on 2/3 May 2006 are available onrequest to the International Secretariat:[email protected]

Lucy Komisar and Larry Bridwell(TJN-USA) at the UN in New York.


14

Madrid conference onglobalisation, tax havens andpoor countriesJuan Hdez. Vigueras

On 25 and 26 May a conference on Glob-alisation, Tax Havens and Poor Countriestook place in the Escuela Julián Besteiroof the UGT (Union General de Traba-jadores or General Workers’ Union) inMadrid. The event was organised by At-tac and Economistas sin Fronteras , andsponsored by the Spanish Secretariat ofState for International Cooperation(SECI).

The conference drew attention to thedevastating impact of tax havens on poorcountries. Speakers included: the Direc-tor General of SECI; Arcadi Oliveres,professor of economics at BarcelonaUniversity; Juan Hdez. Vigueras, TJNsteering committee member; John Chris-tensen, director of the TJN InternationalSecretariat; Sven Giegold, TJN steeringcommittee member; Bernard Cassen, ex-director of Le Monde Diplomatique; andAttac Spain members Ricardo GªZaldívar y Soledad Milán.

Conference participants stated thatmuch higher tax revenues will be neededin order to meet the globally adoptedtargets to reduce poverty by 2015 con-tained in the UN’s Millennium Develop-ment Goals (MDGs). TJN estimates thatthe amount of funds held by wealthy in-dividuals in tax havens globally could gen-erate additional tax revenues of US$255billion per year – enough to finance theMDGs.

The launch of the Nordic TaxJustice Network

Nordic TJN wants Nordic countriesto highlight tax responsibilityJorma Penttinen

The Nordic social model, renownedglobally as a positive development strat-egy, is not compatible with harmful taxpractices. Therefore tax activists in Nor-way, Sweden and Finland decided toform a Nordic Tax Justice Network(NTJN) to promote good tax practices.

The launching event took place in Oslo,on 10 June, where tax activists spentthree days formulating the role of NTJN.John Christensen from TJN’s Interna-tional Secretariat offered ideas on howthe Nordic countries could approach thedebate on coherent development policy,and how Nordic companies could taketheir tax behaviour into account whencreating corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies.

The Nordic tax model is based on trans-parency and redistribution, and on fi-nancing universal public goods and highquality services. This model has strength-ened social cohesion, welfare and eco-nomic competitiveness.

The Nordic countries thus have an ex-cellent opportunity to take an active rolein international cooperation and workwith key institutions (OECD, EU, UN) totackle cross-border tax avoidance andevasion, and to resist tax competition.Just recently the Nordic finance minis-

ters decided to have common Nordictreaties on exchange of information withsome 30 tax haven jurisdictions. This is,of course, a feeble attempt to curb taxhaven activities, but it shows that thereis a common will to act on these issues.

Some Nordic companies have a strongsense of social responsibility, eventhough tax matters have traditionallybeen ignored. Nordic TJN plans to havea dialogue with the business communityand create positive CSR recommenda-tions in which corporations’ responsibili-ties cover their whole impact on a soci-ety. No Nordic country would approveof a company that doesn’t pay taxes butin developing countries big companiescan, in many cases, operate virtually taxfree.

The Nordic Tax Justice Network ex-pects tackling harmful tax practices to bebrought in to the international arenas asa top priority. This can effectively bedone through Nordic co-operation. TheNordic countries have a great opportu-nity, and responsibility, to promote sus-tainable global social and economic de-velopment.

The network will also work on nationalbasis, pressing each of the countries in-volved – at the moment Finland, Norwayand Sweden – to adapt the best tax prac-tices and legislative innovations fromeach other.

Nordic TJN’s website can be found at:www.taxjustice.net/nordic

July 6-7Workshop at Essex University, UK:Tax, poverty and finance for development.Organised jointly by the Association forAccountancy & Business Affairs and TJN.

July 6-7Ministerial conference of the Leading Groupon Solidarity Levies to Fund Development,Brasilia, Brazil. Lucy Komisar (TJN-USA) andDavid Hillman (Stamp Out Poverty) torepresent TJN.

July 15-17G8 Meeting, St Petersburg, Russia.

July 24Side event ‘International Cooperation on TaxMatters’ at the Substantive Session of theEconomic and Social Council. Organised bythe Financing for Development Office/DESAand TJN.

August 30 - September 1Royal Geographical Society annual conference,London, UK. Key theme: The geography ofcorruption. Guest speaker: John Christensen(TJN).

September 19-20IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings,Singapore.

October 19 - 22Nordic Social Forum, Oslo, Norway. TJN tolaunch its code of conduct on tax policy forbusiness.

November 15-18International Anti-Corruption Conference(IACC), Guatemala City and Antigua,Guatemala. Organised by the IACC Counciland Transparency International.

DecemberFirst conference of State Parties to the UnitedNations Convention Against Corruption,Jordan.

Calendar 2006

tax justice focus · tax justice focus the quarterly newsletter of the second quarter 2006 volume 2...

Documents